Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fridena v. Evans, 622 P.2d 463.

38 citing documents.

State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“The truthfulness and veracity of a witness is always material.”).
Kopp v. Physician Grp. of Ariz., Inc. 421 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2018
Thomas Kopp v. Physician Group of Az Ariz. 2018
Explained Kopp v. Physician Grp. of Ariz., Inc. 421 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2018
See, e.g. , Fridena v. Evans , , ; Tucson Med.
Explained Thomas Kopp v. Physician Group of Az Ariz. 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶44 “[A] corporation is bound by the knowledge acquired by, or notice given to, its agents or officers which is within the scope of their authority and which is in reference to a matter to which their authority extends.”
Rice v. Brakel, M.D., Center for Neurosciences 310 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rice v. Brakel, M.D., Center for Neurosciences 310 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶19 “[A] corporation is bound by the knowledge acquired by, or notice given to, its agents or officers which is within the scope of their authority and which is in reference to a matter to which their authority extends.”
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant 265 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant 265 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 12 While a trial court is not required to instruct the jury on every nuance of law suggested by counsel, , it must refuse to give an instruction that does not correctly state the law.
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Taylor, 124 Ariz. at 518 , 606 P.2d at 8 ; , Gaston, 121 Ariz. at 53 , 588 P.2d at 346 .
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
First, “a corporation is bound by the knowledge acquired by, or notice given to, its agents or officers *138 which is within the scope of their authority and which is in reference to a matter to which their authority extends.” , (emphasis added).
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(“great” discretion given to trial court in determining whether evidence required an adjustment of the verdict).
State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
199 , 78 L.Ed.2d 174 (1983); Fridena v. *28 Evans
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
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
*19 522 , and cases cited.
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
Foulk v. Kotz 673 P.2d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Foulk v. Kotz 673 P.2d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans 636 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans 636 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981