Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Starkovich v. Noye, 529 P.2d 698.

34 citing documents.

Jamelle A. v. Dcs, M.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jamelle A. v. Dcs, M.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
in the trial court.” (citation and internal quotation omitted).
Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 15(b); (citations omitted), mother did not admit any evidence regarding spousal maintenance, but only submitted rebuttal 6 SARBU v. CARP Decision of the Court court denied her request for spousal
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
the case will be treated as though the amendments were made.” (“It is also the rule that the admission of evidence without objection will enlarge the pleadings and render it proper for the trial court to treat the pleadings as though amended so as to conform to the proof.”).
Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
¶10 This court’s P.2d 698 (1974), decided just six months earlier.
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
See Starkovich v. Noye, 111 Ariz. 347, (when proper foundation established, statement in complaint is admission against interest); Joseph M. Livermore et al., Law of Evidence § 801.5 (4th ed. 2000) (discussing admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(D)); see also Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav.
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equip. v. PROP. & CAS. INS. GUAR. 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
324 , , vacated on other grounds, , that Clark is bound by a judicial admission, contained in its Rule 26.1 disclosure statement, that the Fund committed anticipatory breach as early as 1987 by failing to investigate, acknowledge, defend, or indemnify the claims.
Clark Equip. v. PROP. & CAS. INS. GUAR. 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
324 , , vacated on other grounds, , that Clark is bound by a judicial admission, contained in its Rule 26.1 disclosure statement, that the Fund committed anticipatory breach as early as 1987 by failing to investigate, acknowledge, defend, or indemnify the claims.
Black v. Perkins 787 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Black v. Perkins 787 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See generally Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction, Inc., , , , , approved, , 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1064 (Chadbourn rev.1972).
Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
324, 326 , vacated on other grounds, , citing IX Wigmore, Evidence, § 2588 (3d ed. 1940).
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Berry v. McLeod 604 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1979
Berry v. McLeod 604 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1979
controls but their interpretations of that case differ radically.
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
(punitive damages properly awarded in declaratory judgment action awarding equitable relief of reformation); Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects, , Downs v. Shouse, 18 Ariz.App.
Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. 606 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. 606 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Finally, Amfac objects to the trial court’s refusal to give its requested instruction on “creating false impressions.” The only objection voiced to the refusal to give this instruction was that: “It’s , ” A reading of the cited case would have revealed that the Superior Court held that a “false impression” instruction was not inconsistent with a general fraud instruction enumerating the nine elements of fraud.
Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 535 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1975
Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 535 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
[filed December 13, 1974] is not to the contrary.
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Starkovich v. Noye, Ariz., , Berry v. Robotka, 9 Ariz.App.