Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bowling v. State, 424 P.2d 159.

24 citing documents.

Origami v. Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-37, -65 (1967) (noting that an appellate court should not decide issues unless it is required to do so to dispose of the appeal under consideration); see also Progressive Specialty Ins.
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
[and] the longer the delay, the greater the risk of residual injury.”); (reversing summary judgment and finding sufficient evidence of causation where an injury was permitted to progress by defendant’s failure to act; “a jury might reasonably have concluded that the subsequent development of plaintiff’s condition into a seriously 3 Rees also cites the porti
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-37 , -65 (1967) (“We have reviewed the assignments [of error] and find nothing in them which makes it necessary to depart from our customary practice of not deciding issues, unless required to do so in order to dispose of the appeal under consideration.’’).
Smethers v. Campion 108 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See, , (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); , (same); , (recognizing tha
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(in a medical malpractice case, the community standard of care may be established by defendant doctor’s own testimony); , quoting Bickford v. Lawson, 27 Cal.App.2d 416, 421 , (expert testimony establishin
Progressive Specialty Insurance v. Farmers Insurance 694 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Hunter v. Benchimol 601 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1979
Appellant’s position that expert testimony is not required in this case implies that the “negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty recognizing it.” He argues that a jury, from its common sense, could determine that Dr. Benchimol was negligent, , and Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association, 10 Ariz.App.
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Evans v. Bernhard 533 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Reader v. General Motors Corporation 483 P.2d 1388 Ariz. 1971
Kord's Ambulance Service, Inc. v. White 482 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Williams v. Slade, 431 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1970).
Warfield v. Shell Oil Company 472 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1970
The facts, when taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff’s posi *184 tion, , show that there was mud at the station and that this created a dangerous condition.
Kleinman v. Armour 470 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
eof, the direction of a verdict and granting of a judgment thereon constituted an abuse of discretion.” While as a general rule, negligence in the form of medical malpractice must be established by expert medical testimony, , , 242 P. 436 (1926); , , it is well recognized that expert testimony is not required where the resolution of the question to be determined does not require special and technical knowledge of the medical profession, and is so grossly apparent that the average layman would ha
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
2 Restatement of Torts 2nd, Sec.
Herman v. Vigil 464 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Tanner v. Levie 460 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1969
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Zimmer v. Salcido 453 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969