Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chavez v. Pima County, 488 P.2d 978.

30 citing documents.

Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
TDB “may not invite error [in the trial court] and then assign it as error on appeal.”
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
art. 18, § 5; , -71 , -51 , -34 (App.1980).
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Watson, 7 Ariz.App.
Menendez v. Bartlett 607 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Menendez v. Bartlett 607 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Hildebrand v. Minyard, 16 Ariz.App.
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Pontecorvo 603 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Pontecorvo 603 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
The rule in Arizona is that: “For a person to assume the risk of harm to himself, he must have known of the facts or circumstances creating the danger or hazard, he must have comprehended and fully appreciated the consequences of his act and he must have voluntarily exposed himself thereto.”
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Citizens Utilities Co. v. Firemen’s Ins.
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
It is the rule that instructions must be based on some theory supported by the evidence in the case, , Tucson Utility Supplies, , , reversed on other grounds, , and it is reversible error to instruct on a theory which is not supported by the facts
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Rather, it gives the jury the right to opt against contributory negligence if it feels so disposed.” Appellant’s argument that Heimke v. Munoz, supra, , , which cited Layton with approval.
Reckart v. Avra Valley Air, Inc. 509 P.2d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Reckart v. Avra Valley Air, Inc. 509 P.2d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Restatement of Torts 2d § 496(D) (1965).
Cohen v. Sahuaro Petroleum & Asphalt Co. 496 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Cohen v. Sahuaro Petroleum & Asphalt Co. 496 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Hildebrand v. Minyard 494 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hildebrand v. Minyard 494 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971