Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Loya v. Fong, 404 P.2d 826.
- French v. Montiel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
French v. Montiel
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
in the pre-trial memorandum or pre-trial order”); –86 (1965) (finding error when court allowed testimony on issue eliminated in pretrial order).
- Pettay v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 752 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Pettay v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 752 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Carlton v. Emhardt 674 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Carlton v. Emhardt 674 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Ash v. Flieger 578 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- Ash v. Flieger 578 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
- Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
- Southern Pacific Company v. Loden 508 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
-
Southern Pacific Company v. Loden
508 P.2d 347
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Calderon v. Calderon, 9 Ariz.App.
- Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
-
Pierce v. Lopez
490 P.2d 1182
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Bank of Arizona, , , , Annot., 69 A.L.R.2d 449 , 482 (1960); 5A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 50.05 [1], at 2341 (2d ed. 1971); 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 142 (1969) ; 2B W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1074, at 372 (C. Wright ed. 1961).
- Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
-
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers
490 P.2d 853
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may not be entertained unless a motion for directed verdict was made at the close of all of the evidence, prior to submission of the case to the jury, , , since it is merely a renewal of the motion for directed verdict and is designed to permit the trial judge, after more mature deliberation, to revise: his ruling in denying the movant’s motion for directed verdict.
- Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
-
Rodriguez v. Williams
489 P.2d 268
Ariz. 1971
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict rrfay not be entertained unless a motion for directed verdict was made at the close of all the evidence, prior to submission of the case to the jury, , , since it is merely a renewal of the motion for directed verdict and is designed to permit the trial judge, after more mature deliberation, to revise his ruling in denying the movant’s motion for directed verdict.
- Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
- Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
- Calderon v. Calderon 454 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Calderon v. Calderon 454 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Stouffer Hospital Foods Services, Inc. v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Stouffer Hospital Foods Services, Inc. v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc. 433 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc. 433 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- Horne v. Timbanard 434 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
-
Horne v. Timbanard
434 P.2d 520
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
e and material representations as .to subject matter made by the other party to the transaction is subject to rescission at the election of the person deceived.” The broker complains that in giving this instruction, the trial court “* * * went outside the pretrial order to take this case away from counsel and reshape it to fit a framework of its own theories.”
- Lewis v. Siria 421 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Lewis v. Siria 421 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Moore v. Gray 414 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
-
Moore v. Gray
414 P.2d 158
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
The pretrial order' which governed the trial of the case, , is likewise incompatible with a separate defense of assumption of risk.
- Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Temp-Rite Engineering Co. v. Chesin Construction Co. 413 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
-
Temp-Rite Engineering Co. v. Chesin Construction Co.
413 P.2d 288
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
this court dealt with a situation where a trial court permitted evidence into the record, over objection, which was outside of the issues framed by a stipulated pretrial order.