Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler, 558 P.2d 894.

32 citing documents.

State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“‘Should’ can be used to indicate desirability or preference rather than an obligation or mandate.”).
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶38 Warner also asserts that our supreme court’s P.2d 894 (1976), “dictates that an instruction and evidence regarding a worker[s’] compensation lien are mandatory when the jury is led to believe that worker[s’] compensation has been provided to a plaintiff.” In that case, the attorneys for the defendants in a negligence action “inject[ed] and continuously e
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(jury instruction may not mandate verdict for defendant in event plaintiff found contributorily neghgent).
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
(stating that in a contributory negligence instruction, “the word ‘should’ tends to be confusing,” and use of the word “may” is preferable).
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
(Emphasis in original;) “[Yjour verdict should but need not be in favor of the Defendants____”
Vega v. Griffiths Construction, Inc. 833 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
(emphasis added), quoting Jean v. Collins Constr.
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
the trial court instructed the jury: If you find that either or both of the Plaintiffs were negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries, then your verdict should but need not be in favor of the Defendants and against the contribu-torily negligent Plaintif
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App.
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
This evidence was excluded because of the collateral source rule
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Plaintiff challenges the use of the word “should,” contending that this court’s , required reversal if “should” is used.
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
4 Appellants’ argument is primarily based upon the Supreme Court’s , (a pre-RAJI case).
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Hurvitz v. Coburn 572 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Hurvitz v. Coburn 572 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
the court held that the word “may” was preferable but did not hold it to be error, let alone fundamental error, to give the “should” instruction.