Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Vegodsky v. City of Tucson, 399 P.2d 723.

42 citing documents.

Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Family, 217 P.3d at 1217
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(evidence that medical malpractice defense expert was health care insurer’s vice president and member of its board of directors was admissible to show possible bias); , (“Ordinarily, it is proper on cross-examination to bring forth prior connections between the witness and a party in order to show bias.
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
Likewise, , the plaintiff alleged the city failed to adequately maintain an area used as a pedestrian crosswalk, while the city argued it had no notice of the allegedly dangerous condition.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
Freight System, Inc., , , , Inspiration Consol.
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
This incorrectly leads to attempts to decide on a general basis whether a defendant has a “duty” to post warning signs, , fix potholes, , or provide additional traffic signs, Rodgers v. Ray, 10 Ariz.App.
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1984
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1984
119 , ), fix potholes ( , ) and the like.
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
However, if the city itself caused the defect, , or if the repairs or improvements were defective when made, Clem, supra, notice of the defects is not a prerequisite to holding the municipality liable.
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
A city’s duties to properly maintain its streets, , and to remove dangerous dead trees from its land, see City of Phoenix v. Whiting, 10 Ariz.App.
Ivicevic v. City of Glendale 549 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ivicevic v. City of Glendale 549 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
189 , (negligent maintenance of rotting trees on city land adjoining street); , (negligent construction or maintenance of city street).
Burgbacher v. Mellor 543 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1975
Burgbacher v. Mellor 543 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1975
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
reseeability of the danger establishes the duty.”; Morris v. Ortiz, supra, where the court said that foreseeability went to the duty issue; , where the court approved the foreseeable instruction given by the trial court and approved in Tucker v. Collar, supra, where it goes to the issue of negligence; P.2d 723 (1965), where the court approved a foreseeability instruction as a part of the standard of care in order for the jury to be properly instructed on the issue of contributory negligence; *12
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964); , M. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 3 at 7-8 (1960).
Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Tanner v. Pacioni 413 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Tanner v. Pacioni 413 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The giving of a negative instruction is not usually desirable, , and we find no error in the refusal to give the defendants’ requested instruction.
Eades v. House 413 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Eades v. House 413 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Krek v. Briel 412 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Krek v. Briel 412 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
City of Tucson v. Holliday 411 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
City of Tucson v. Holliday 411 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965