Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Patania v. Silverstone, 415 P.2d 139.

46 citing documents.

State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
within the peculiar knowledge of a witness, and he fails to testify as to the fact, the trier of fact may justly draw the inference that the true fact is against his interest.” 15 STATE v. QUIJADA Opinion of the Court (1934); –29 (1966) (adverse inference improper for failure to call a witness where damages caused by amputated fingertip “were susceptible of proof without expert medical testimony”); Ponce v. Indus.
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(“[P]laintiff has the burden of proof in establishing damages ____”); ¶ 22 , (“The judge should instruct the jury to ‘find the amount of damages sustained by each beneficiary.’ ” (quoting Nunez v. Nunez, 25 Ariz.App
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
(plaintiff has burden of proof in establishing damages).
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
cf. Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (“[W]hen a party challenges a trial court’s jury instruction, reversal is justified only if the instruction was both erroneous and ‘prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appealing party.’”), quotin
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
*368 ¶ 44 Plaintiff argues that it is the court’s duty to instruct the jury regarding the law on subjects at issue even in the absence of a request and that failing to do so constitutes fundamental and reversible error ú
Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 714 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1986
Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 714 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1986
Campbell v. Westdahl 715 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Campbell v. Westdahl 715 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Buffa v. Scott 708 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Buffa v. Scott 708 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
In our opinion, , 1 , the testimony by a patient on cross-examination at a deposition does not constitute a waiver of the doctor-patient privilege.
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Any privilege to communicate may be waived by publication of that communication to persons other than the privileged recipient, , [attorney-client privilege]; , [physician-patient privilege].
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Cf., , where the court held that “the failure to instruct on the issue of licensee and trespasser, without a request, was not such a vital issue as to constitute fundamental and reversible error.” 3 Ariz.App.
Ponce v. Industrial Commission 584 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Ponce v. Industrial Commission 584 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In a more recent case involving the failure to call a witness, , this Court stressed the Starkweather requirement of unique knowledge and held an adverse inference inappropriate where the potential witness’ knowledge was not unique.
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Tucson Medical Center Incorporated v. Rowles 520 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Tucson Medical Center Incorporated v. Rowles 520 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
While many Arizona cases have found a waiver of the privilege, , , we have found no cases in which one asserting the privilege for an absent holder has been found to waive it.
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The context of the “comment” ( , ) is best shown by including a fairly substantial amount of the argument leading up to it: [Mr. Estrada] : “That child could be alive today and just because a child is in the street you have no right to kill a child.
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
Nagle v. Conger 456 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Nagle v. Conger 456 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
See, , Boutang v. Twin City Motor Company, 248 Minn. 240 , 80 N.W.2d 30 (1957).
Union Bank v. Safanie 427 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Union Bank v. Safanie 427 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by