Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass'n, 627 P.2d 666.

32 citing documents.

Cardona v. Ivory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Cardona v. Ivory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
La Sota v. Ariz. Licensed Beverage Ass’n, Inc., -45 ¶¶ 18-20 (App. 2018) (applying similar approach in family court); Ariz. R. Fam.
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
La Sota v. Ariz. Licensed Beverage Ass’n, Inc., (“exclusion of repetitious or cumulative evidence does not require reversal”).
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler 315 P.3d 711 Ariz. 2014
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler 315 P.3d 711 Ariz. 2014
La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n, (“The trial judge has authority to reject the testimony of an interested witness and to determine credibility.”).
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler Ariz. 2014
In the Matter of Michael E. Isler Ariz. 2014
La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n, (“The trial judge has authority to reject the testimony of an interested witness and to determine credibility.”).
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 803 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1990
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 803 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1990
LaSota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n, Ariz.R.Civ.P.
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hudson 730 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1986
State v. Hudson 730 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1986
La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n, Inc., , relying upon 17A A.R.S.
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
LaSota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n, , or if we are convinced that absent the error, the jury would have reached a different verdict.
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
LaSota v. Arizo *16 na Licensed Beverage Ass’n
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
LaSota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n
Wean Water, Inc. v. Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. 686 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wean Water, Inc. v. Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. 686 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LaSota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Inc.
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Rule 52(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Patecell v. Cook 673 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Patecell v. Cook 673 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
LaSota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Inc., , *98 , Shirley v. National Applicators of California, Inc.
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass’n., , in which we upheld agreements authorized under Arizona’s fair trade act establishing minimum resale prices despite the provisions of the state antitrust laws prohibiting price fixing.
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cf. State v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Inc., , (Supreme Court, 1981) (agreements authorized by fair trade act are accepted from antitrust prohibitions of state antitrust act.)