Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe, 672 P.2d 914.

32 citing documents.

Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. 2024
Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. 2024
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A party “is not entitled to the use of any specific words, but merely to have the jury fairly and adequately apprised of the applicable law.” (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Dawley 34 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Dawley 34 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In addition, our supreme court has discouraged extracting jury instructions directly from the language of appellate decisions, , which instructions can be “confusing to those not trained in the law.”
Myhaver v. Knutson 942 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1997
Myhaver v. Knutson 942 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1997
We granted review to determine whether a , (disapproving the “sudden appearance” instruction)
State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(no reversible error when an instruction, even though imperfect, gives appellant “ample room to argue” theory of the case).
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
577 n. 6, , 921 n. 6 (1983).
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Harris Cattle Co. v. Paradise Motors, Inc.
Durnin v. Karber Air Conditioning Co. 778 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Durnin v. Karber Air Conditioning Co. 778 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Papastathis v. Beall 723 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Papastathis v. Beall 723 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Farm Aero Service, Inc. v. Henning Produce, Inc., 23 Ariz.App.
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
Lynn v. Helitec Corp. 698 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lynn v. Helitec Corp. 698 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Jones v. Munn 681 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1984
Jones v. Munn 681 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1984
919 (1983); see also Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts, § 33, at 169 (4th ed. 1971) (“conduct required is still that of a reasonable man under the circumstances, as they would appear to one who was using proper care ____” (footnotes omitted)).