Cited by

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

61 citing documents.

Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 640 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
(citations omitted), as follows: Instructions must be viewed as a whole and not piecemeal; the test being, upon the whole charge, whether the jury will gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at the correct decision.
Smedberg v. Simons 631 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1981
Smedberg v. Simons 631 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1981
It is not error for the court to refuse to give requested *378 instructions adequately covered elsewhere by instructions which are given.” , (Citations omitted.)
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
we held that it is error to instruct the jury on a theory of the case which does not find support in the evidence.
State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
Brierley v. Anaconda Co., Ill Ariz. 8
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
When read in context with the other instructions, see, e. g., , we find the “presumption” instruction confusing and likely to mislead the jury into believing that a malpractice plaintiff bears a double burden in proving her case.