Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Podol v. Jacobs, 173 P.2d 758.

48 citing documents.

Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Although a declaratory judgment action is remedial and should be “liberally construed and administered,” a plaintiff must have “an actual or real interest in the matter for determination.”
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
v. Ralston, , (“It is proper to ask for and receive injunctive or other relief [in a DRA] where the facts warrant it.”); , (“It ...
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 786 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1990
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 786 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1990
of Adjustment II, , (appellate court need not decide moot questions or abstract propositions); , (Supreme Court is confined to determining the law on issues arising out of actual facts, and cannot determine what the law or rule may be upon a suppositious case).
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pena v. Fullinwider 601 P.2d 1326 Ariz. 1979
Pena v. Fullinwider 601 P.2d 1326 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
and cases cited therein; M. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 4 (1960 ed.).
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
22 Am.Jur.2d Declaratory Judgments § 8 (1965)."
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
308 at 310 , at 536 (1972): *468 “The remedial purpose of the declaratory judgments act has been adverted to in Peterson v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc. 508 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc. 508 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Ap-pellees, , contend, however, that the lease is ambiguous in that it does not make reference to whose financial statements are to be documented and that such ambiguity requires that the lease provision be construed in favor of the tenant.
Citizens' Committee for the Recall of Williams v. Marston 507 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1973
Citizens' Committee for the Recall of Williams v. Marston 507 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1973
We agree with the Court of Appeals: “ * * * The remedial purpose of the declaratory judgments act has been adverted to in Peterson v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks 497 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks 497 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
s declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.” The remedial purpose of the declaratory judgments act has been adverted to in Peterson v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 43(g), 16 A.R.S.; at 184 , ; at 360 , ; at 58 , ; Udall on Evidence, § 45.
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Robinson 483 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Robinson 483 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ricca v. Bojorquez, 13 Ariz.App.
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Secrist v. Diedrich 430 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Secrist v. Diedrich 430 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Having an “actual controversy,” , we find it appropriate that the trial court proceeded to render declaratory judgment settling the controversy before it, even though the expenditures for the particular landscaping which precipitated this action were so far completed as to be beyond specific relief, because of the public int
MacKey v. Philzona Petroleum Company 378 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1963
MacKey v. Philzona Petroleum Company 378 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1963
Switzer v. City of Phoenix 341 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1959
Switzer v. City of Phoenix 341 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1959
Valley National Bank v. First National Bank 320 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1958
Valley National Bank v. First National Bank 320 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1958
761: “The question in a suit under the declaratory judgment act must be real and not merely theoretical.
State v. Thomas 290 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1955
State v. Thomas 290 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1955
General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954
General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954
for an excellent exposition of the rule.
J. & B. MOTORS, INC. v. Margolis 257 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1953
J. & B. MOTORS, INC. v. Margolis 257 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1953
Therein the court said: “(4) The court, in its discretion, may forbid the cross-examining party putting leading questions when the objection is made that the witness is biased in favor of the party cross-examining, and the court is satisfied that the objection is good.” , .
Bowser v. Sandige 250 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1952
Bowser v. Sandige 250 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1952
With respect to the further question raised by plaintiffs to the effect that they should have been allowed to cross-examine their own witness who had been called for cross-examination as an adverse witness under the statute, , , but limit this opinion to the statement that even though error was committed it was harmless because all of the facts that could then have been developed on cross-examination were later presented to the court when Bowser was called as defendants’ witness in chief.
Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ralston 196 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1948
Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ralston 196 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1948
Section 21-1217, A.C.A.1939, provides in part: “ * * * The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate.