Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Spettigue v. Mahoney, 445 P.2d 557.

32 citing documents.

Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(stating that “a negligent servant ordinarily has the duty of indemnifying his employer”).
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. 746 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. 746 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
(quoting Bernhard, 19 Cal.2d at 810 , 122 P.2d at 895 ).
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Department 727 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Department 727 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Standage Ventures, , Food for Health Co., Inc. v. 3839 Joint Venture
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1986
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1986
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
While it may be possible that cases tried separately, though arising from the same facts, may result in inconsistent verdicts, , , verdicts in cases consolidated for trial must be consistent.
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
*107 (1968), applied the Restatement rule in rejecting offensive use of collateral estoppel.
Simkins v. Pulley 569 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Simkins v. Pulley 569 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Cf. Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 2 Ariz.App.
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
however, limited the principle of law set forth in DiOrio in holding that a stranger to the first suit is allowed to implement the prior judgment only when doing so “defensively.” That is, a party who is not bound by the judgment of an earlier lawsuit cannot take the initiative to invoke the jud
Cimino v. Alway 501 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Cimino v. Alway 501 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
on the issue of collateral estoppel.
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
This court then granted certiorari and affirmed the lower court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion in a
Burrell v. Southern Pacific Company 474 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Burrell v. Southern Pacific Company 474 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Burrell has appealed contending that he is not estopped from prosecuting this action against his codefendant in the earlier action citing Spettigue v. Mahoney, 1968, , , and Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 1965, 2 Ariz.App.
Day v. Wiswall 464 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Day v. Wiswall 464 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
The present Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws § 449 states: “(1) A valid foreign judgment that the defendant do or refrain from doing an act other than the payment of money will not be enforced by an action on the judgment.” , we held when the law is not settled upon a particular subject, the law of the Restatement will be looked to with favor.
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc. 453 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc. 453 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
329 , , does not apply in this instance.
State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by