Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dykeman v. Ashton, 446 P.2d 26.

66 citing documents.

Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
230 , , ; , Zakroff v. May, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Dziggel 492 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Dziggel 492 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Pacht v. Morris 489 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1971
Pacht v. Morris 489 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1971
State v. Sayre 483 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Sayre 483 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Weston v. Denny 480 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Weston v. Denny 480 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
*3 , held: “It is well settled in this State that a motion for a continuance is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless that discretion has been abused the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed by a reviewing tribunal.
Gardner v. Royal Development Company 465 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Gardner v. Royal Development Company 465 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company 457 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company 457 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
: “It is well settled in this State that a motion for continuance is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless that discretion has been abused the trial court’s ruling will not be dis *189 turbed by a reviewing tribunal.
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968