Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Graham v. Vegetable Oil Products Company, 401 P.2d 242.

50 citing documents.

S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[T]he trial court is not bound to accept as true the uncontradicted testimony of an interested party.”).
Sakthiveil v. Clear Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sakthiveil v. Clear Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶8 Sakthiveil counters that the statute of frauds does not apply to oral insurance agreements, citing Graham v. Vegetable Oil Prods., Co.
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stella H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stella H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (“[T]he trial court is not bound to accept as true the uncontradicted 1 Mother does not challenge any specific factual finding made by the juvenile court nor does she challenge the court’s legal conclusion that she has a history of chronic substance abuse.
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (citations omitted).
Gasiorowski v. Hose 897 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gasiorowski v. Hose 897 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , see Schwartz v. Farmers Ins.
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Coffman v. Coffman 591 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Coffman v. Coffman 591 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Although Mr. Coffman was an interested party, the trial court could accept his uncontradicted testimony where no evidence was presented which impugned its veracity, , even though this is a paternity case.
Chirekos v. Chirekos 537 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Chirekos v. Chirekos 537 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Arizona State Liquor Board v. Jacobs 511 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Arizona State Liquor Board v. Jacobs 511 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hayne v. Hayne 449 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hayne v. Hayne 449 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
and cases cited therein.
Metheany v. Waite 429 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Metheany v. Waite 429 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
2), because the appellee’s cause of action is based upon an agreement to answer for the debt of another and is not in writing
Stewart v. Lee-Stewart, Inc. 425 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Stewart v. Lee-Stewart, Inc. 425 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 3, p. 10.
Carrasco v. Carrasco 422 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Carrasco v. Carrasco 422 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corporation 411 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corporation 411 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
Dumes v. HAROLD LAZ ADVERTISING COMPANY 409 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Dumes v. HAROLD LAZ ADVERTISING COMPANY 409 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
The uncontradicted testimony of an interested party may be rejected, , but where the testimony of an interested party is supported by “disinterested corroboration,” a rejection of that evidence amounts to arbitrary action by the court.
Blecick v. School District No. 18 of Cochise County 406 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Blecick v. School District No. 18 of Cochise County 406 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Loya v. Fong 404 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Loya v. Fong 404 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Ensign v. Bohn 403 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Ensign v. Bohn 403 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
[1965], If there is any legal theory supported by credible evidence and included within the issues framed by the pleadings supporting the judgment of the trial court, it should be affirmed.
Inland Western Finance Co. v. Davis 402 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Inland Western Finance Co. v. Davis 402 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Graham et al. v. Vegetable Oil Products Company, et al.