Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kauffman v. Schroeder, 568 P.2d 411.

61 citing documents.

Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury on all phases of the law applicable to the facts developed at trial.”); (holding that plaintiff was entitled to a new trial when evidence was sufficient to support giving her requested instructions).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
er jury instructions 36 correctly state the law, ¶ 30, “read[ing] the jury instructions as a whole to ensure that the jury receives the information it needs to arrive at a legally correct decision,” Granville, 211 Ariz. at 471 ¶ 8, 123 P.3d at 665 ( ).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
Kauffman v. Schroeder, 116 Ariz. 104, 106
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The test for the sufficiency of the jury instructions given is “whether, taken as a whole, they allow the jury to ‘gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at the correct decision.’ ” J.R. Norton, 158 Ariz. at 52 , 760 P.2d at 1101 ( , ).
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
[5] , , , Konow v. Southern Pac.
Herman v. Sedor 812 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Herman v. Sedor 812 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
as follows: Instructions must be viewed as a whole and not piecemeal, ...
Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State Ex Rel. Miller v. J.R. Norton Co. 760 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State Ex Rel. Miller v. J.R. Norton Co. 760 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The test for the sufficiency of jury instructions is whether, taken as a whole, they allow the jury to “gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at the correct decision.”
State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1988
superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
490 , 74 L.Ed.2d 632 (1982); , (duty of court to instruct jury on all phases of law applicable to facts developed at trial).
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Niecikowski v. Davis 731 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Niecikowski v. Davis 731 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. 739 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. 739 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Boulware v. Carbajal 673 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Boulware v. Carbajal 673 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
§ 28-602(2)(a) defined an unmarked crosswalk as: “That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway.” , held that A.R.S.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Arizona Public Service v. Brittain, 107 Ariz. at 281, 486 P.2d at 179 .
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 640 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981