Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Watson, 436 P.2d 175.

47 citing documents.

Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
The court found, first, that the verdict was a compromise verdict, that is, a verdict in which “some of the jurors have conceded liability against their judgment, and some have reduced their estimate of the damages in order to secure an agreement of liability with their fellow jurors[.]’” quoting Gastelum, 36 Ariz. at 125, 283 P. at 725.
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“While complete uniformity in verdicts [for wrongful death] can never be achieved, there must be some limits to the unevenness that will be tolerated.”).
Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
See, e.g., Markowitz; Bach; , McKenna v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 57 Haw.
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986
5 The wrongful death statute has been liberally construed to allow damages for “intangible[s] as to which there can be no unanimity of opinion[,]” , including “anguish, sorrow, stress, mental suffering, pain and shock....”
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Reben v. Ely 705 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Reben v. Ely 705 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
483 , concerned the allowance of damages to the survivors of an eleven-year-old girl killed in an auto-train crash, , concerned the deaths of a mother and her twelve-year-old daughter.
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
547 , (ice on county highway); , (failure to warn of narrow bridge).
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
relying in part on Stallcup , held an additur applicable (although inappropriate at the appellate level) where the verdict in a wrongful death case was shockingly small.
Lake Havasu Irrigation & Drainage District v. Dubois 573 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lake Havasu Irrigation & Drainage District v. Dubois 573 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Appellants’ negligence “need not be the only cause of this accident.”
Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
Delarosa v. State 518 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Delarosa v. State 518 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
The standard of care owed by the state is the same as that owed by a municipality
Slavin v. City of Tucson 495 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Slavin v. City of Tucson 495 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
119 , , we do not perceive that such general statement of the law applies to the facts of the case sub judice.
Spettigue v. Arizona Highway Commission 483 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Spettigue v. Arizona Highway Commission 483 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
The motion for summary judgment was based upon the fact that plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the same two-car accident which was the subject of previous litigation which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs, against the State of Arizona, and which litigation was the subject of an opinion of this court
Walker v. County of Coconino 473 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Walker v. County of Coconino 473 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
595 , , ; City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, 1 Ariz.App.
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
510 , which quotes from Herzberg; and State v.Watson, , 436 P.2d.
Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Followed Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
review denied, March 5, 1968, this •court upheld a judgment against the State for failure to properly post warning signs as to a narrow bridge in the highway.
Ulan v. Richtars 446 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ulan v. Richtars 446 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Spettigue v. Mahoney 445 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Spettigue v. Mahoney 445 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The plaintiffs’ injuries arise out of the same two-car accident which was the subject of previous litigation which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs and against the State of Arizona, and which litigation was the subject of an opinion of this court, , review denied March 5, 1968.
Conner v. State 436 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Conner v. State 436 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
at 87 , at 181 (opinion filed Dec.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by