Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reese v. Cradit, 469 P.2d 467.

42 citing documents.

Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In general, “[t]he rule in Arizona is that, in the absence of a request that the jury bring in a special verdict on each count if several counts, issues or theories are tried and submitted to the jury, a general verdict will stand if evidence on one count, issue or theory is sufficient to sustain the verdict.” (-39 (1970) (citing cases)).
Digital Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Moreno 394 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Digital Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Moreno 394 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
4 Any argument that DSE may posit suggesting that John divorced Bernadette to avoid his liability pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment is speculative at best.
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
We will “uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count, issue or theory sustains the verdict.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 64, P.2d 467 (1970).
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
see also Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., -42 , -87 (App.1983) (appellant could not challenge a general verdict because of ample evidence to sustain the award at least for the consumer fraud count).
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
(general verdict will stand if evidence on any theory submitted is sufficient to sustain it) (citing, inter alia, , 206 P. 1075 (1922) (if failure to give requested instruction was error, but no special verdict sought, general verdic
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
“[A] general verdict will be upheld when several counts, issues or theories are submitted to the jury if evidence on one count, issue or theory, is sufficient to sustain the verdict.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.
Monares v. Wilcoxson 736 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Monares v. Wilcoxson 736 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Papastathis v. Beall 723 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. 725 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. 725 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Papastathis v. Beall 723 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Frazier v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 653 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Frazier v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 653 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Barnes v. Lopez 544 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Barnes v. Lopez 544 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Butler v. American Asphalt & Contracting Co. 540 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Butler v. American Asphalt & Contracting Co. 540 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
358 , , ; Town & Country Chrysler Plymouth v. Porter, 11 Ariz.App.
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Gibraltar Escrow Company v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc., 4 Ariz.App.
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman 510 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman 510 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Adams v. Dion 509 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1973
Adams v. Dion 509 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1973
In Arizona the rule has never been adjudicated, although in three cases it has been assumed that the common law rule prevailed:
Adams v. Dion 504 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Three cases in Arizona have touched on this problem: Fagerberg v. Phoenix Flour Mills Co., supra
State of Michigan v. First National Bank of Arizona 495 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State of Michigan v. First National Bank of Arizona 495 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972