Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, 770 P.2d 397.

37 citing documents.

Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶21 Citing Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., and Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., Perez argues the superior court erred because reasonable people could differ as to whether Circle K created an unreasonably dangerous condition or an “open and obvious danger.” The procedural posture of both cases 7 PEREZ v. CIRCLE K
Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz.
Ager v. a Better Today Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ager v. a Better Today Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc., Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, cmt.
Shaver v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Shaver v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Pruess v. Sambo’s of Ariz. Inc., Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, comment d (negligence is the failure to warn of or correct an unreasonably dangerous condition).
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., (“[T]he test is whether the whole charge provided the jury with the proper rules for its decision making.”); -78 (1981) (“It is not error for the court to refuse to give requested instructions adequately covered elsewhere by instructions which are given.”)
Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See *54 , ( , ); , (finding that our supreme court has ruled that since direct and circumstantial evidence have the same probative value, circumstantial evidence need not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, and that drawing inferences from inferences is natural and inevitable).
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
in Arizona and elsewhere, in civil and criminal cases, that direct and circumstantial evidence have equal probative worth.”); see also Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona
Crye v. Edwards 873 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crye v. Edwards 873 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
and circumstantial evidence have equal probative worth”; and our supreme court has long “abandoned the rule that each link in a chain of circumstantial inference must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.” , (citing, inter alia, , Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores, , ).
Cotterhill v. Bafile 865 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cotterhill v. Bafile 865 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona
Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores, , see also, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 137-38 , 75 S.Ct.
Melancon v. USAA Casualty Insurance 849 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Melancon v. USAA Casualty Insurance 849 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores, , Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr.
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Willett v. Ciszek-Olson 823 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Willett v. Ciszek-Olson 823 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona
Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 800 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 800 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona