DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. O'Rielly Motor Co., 168 P.2d 245.

30 citing documents.

  • In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2462 785 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2462 785 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co.
  • 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
    441 , City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co.
  • 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
    City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Company, , ” 8 Ariz.App.
  • Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    169 , , City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , and 17 C. J.S.
  • 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
    City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Company, , ” Appellants next contend that the award of the trial court for attorneys’ fees was excessive.
  • Dykeman v. Ashton 446 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Dykeman v. Ashton 446 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Company
  • City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    *574 In dealing with such a form of strict liability, it might be appropriate to instruct a jury as to an exception to this liability, which exception might be given the label “an act of God.” 3 In City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , there is a quotation to support this thesis: “We think the rule stated in McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2d Ed., Vol.
  • Diedrich v. Farnsworth 413 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Diedrich v. Farnsworth 413 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    Other decisions of our Supreme Court have assumed that waters flowing in arroyos or washes are stream waters or, at least, that the law pertaining to stream waters was applicable: , 196 P. 1024 (1921); City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , Maricopa County Municipal Water C. D. No. 1 v. Warford, , , 262 P.2d *272 252 (1953); , and Gillespie Land & , 379 P.2d
  • City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957
  • City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957
    It has been suggested by counsel for the City and by amicus curiae, in effect, , , and City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , , because the rule announced in the O’Rielly case was based on an incomplete presentation of the facts, which re-examination the majority has done up to a point.
  • City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 245 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1952
  • City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 245 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1952
    The plaintiffs prevailed in those actions and the judgments of the trial court were affirmed by this court in the cases of City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , ; , .
  • Walker v. Burr 238 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1951
  • Walker v. Burr 238 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1951
    ed except for sufficient cause, supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.” Text support for this claim is found in 17 C.J.S., Continuances, § 13: “A party waives whatever rights he may have to a continuance by appearing and going to trial, or proceeding with the trial, without asking for a continuance ; * * * In the case of City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , *132 252 , we quoted with approval the following from 12 Am.Jur., Continuances, section 28: “The r
  • Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
  • Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
    The same rule is applicable to municipal corporations for their negligence in the construction or repair of sewers, , ; defects in the construction of culverts for drainage, , ; maintaining a sewer system so as to constitute a nuisance, City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra.
  • Robinson v. Lehnert 229 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1951
  • Robinson v. Lehnert 229 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1951
    However in City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , , we failed to take cognizance of Rule 50 (a) and reverted to the waiver doctrine.
  • State v. Hendricks 186 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1947
  • State v. Hendricks 186 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1947
    rst three assignments of error pertain to a denial' of a continuance requested by defendant for the trial date of the case in the superior court and are included in Proposition of Law No. 1, and that proposition of law is: “ Continuance should be granted where the ends of justice will be served thereby.” Defendant on this subject refers to this court’s case of City of Tucson v. O’Reilly Motor Co. , , decided April 22, 1946, which case enters into the matter of continuances, but from that case th
  • City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 168 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1946
  • City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 168 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1946
    This case involves the same questions of law in reference to the facts submitted as contained in the opinion in the case of City of Tucson v. O’Reilly Motor Company, , .