Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Newman v. Piazza, 433 P.2d 47.
- Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C.
276 P.3d 11
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In general, “litigants are entitled to submit to the triers of fact evidence of events which ‘complete the story,’ even when such events constitute a crime.” , (citations omitted).
- Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc. 658 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc. 658 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Maxwell Ex Rel. Maxwell v. Gossett 612 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1980
-
Maxwell Ex Rel. Maxwell v. Gossett
612 P.2d 1061
Ariz. 1980
“In this state, it is reversible error to give an instruction on a legal theory as to which there is not substantial evidence, (citations omitted) and it is equally reversible error not to give an instruction on a legal theory within the issues of the case which is supported by substantial evidence.”
- Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- Arizona Container Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways 522 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
- Arizona Container Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways 522 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
- Townsend v. Whatton 521 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
-
Townsend v. Whatton
521 P.2d 1014
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of action” (Emphasis added) , we quoted with approval from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 500.
- Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
- Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
- Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
-
Santanello v. Cooper
468 P.2d 390
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Lastly, , where Division Two of this court held that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct on A.R.S.
- Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
-
Braun v. Moreno
466 P.2d 60
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
The initial responsibility for reducing an excessive verdict is with the trial court
- Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
Hing v. Youtsey
460 P.2d 646
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
That .was correctly denied, , , holding the “range of vision” rule inapplicable in Arizona.
- Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Western Coach Corporation v. Vaughn 452 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Western Coach Corporation v. Vaughn 452 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 446 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
-
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n
446 P.2d 492
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
It is our view that, in order to “complete the story,” , the plaintiff was entitled to present evidence of the appearance and condition of this row of trees, which together might be considered to be an unreasonable risk to travelers on the adjacent highway.
- Rowley v. Rowley 440 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
-
Rowley v. Rowley
440 P.2d 54
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
ncy of the evidence to give the above quoted instruction, our Court has stated: “In this state, it is reversible error to give an instruction on a legal theory as to which there is not substantial evidence, (citations omitted) and it is equally reversible error not to give an instruction on a legal theory within the issues of the case which is supported by substantial evidence.”