Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc., 593 P.2d 275.

30 citing documents.

Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., (“A motion for summary judgment is granted erroneously if, upon examination of the entire record, a reviewing court finds any disputed issue of fact that could affect final judgment.”) (citation omitted).
Shoni v. Hansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shoni v. Hansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 12-820.03(A), the County must prove all of its elements, including that “the plan or design conformed to engineering or design standards generally accepted when the plan or design was prepared,” Glazer, 237 Ariz. at 164, ¶ 13 (citing Hegel v. O’Malley Ins., ), which the parties generally agree are set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), see Fed.
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Co., , (noting that the proponent of an affirmative defense has the burden to prove it).
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co., (affirmative defenses must be pled and proven by defendant or waived); cf. Magma Copper Co. v. Indus.
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Co., , State v. Tucson Title Ins.
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., Inc., , Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co.
Turnkey Corp. v. Rappeport 720 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Turnkey Corp. v. Rappeport 720 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
“[W]hen one is employed in the services of another for any period of time, the law implies a promise to pay what such services are reasonably worth____” at 266 , 187 P. 578 at 579 (1920); see also Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., at 57 , at 280 (1979).
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co.
B & R Materials, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 644 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
B & R Materials, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 644 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Company, Inc.
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co.
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 625 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1981
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 625 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1981
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., P.2d 275 (1979).
Sandoval v. Sandoval 623 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1981
Sandoval v. Sandoval 623 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1981
Co. Inc., , Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 18 Ariz.App.
Gulf Insurance v. Grisham 613 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1980
Gulf Insurance v. Grisham 613 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1980
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., , Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 18 Ariz.App.
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Company, Inc.