Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ruth v. Rhodes, 185 P.2d 304.

75 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
Bank, –26, 296 P. 247, 249 (1931); –14 (1942); –39, overruled in part by Yoo Thun Lim
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
A. ¶ 7 When a statement adverse to a defendant’s interests is made in his presence and he fails to respond, evidence of the statement and the defendant’s subsequent silence may be admissible as a “ ‘tacit admission of the facts stated.’” , ( , ).
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
United States v. Hove, 52 F.3d 233 , 236-37 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (applying the identical Rule 801(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to adoptive admissions by silence); -35 , (outlining the common law rule governing adoptive admissions by silence); Fed.R.Evid.
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
¶ 27 The legislative enactment of a , and Ryan, , .
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
¶ 27 The legislative enactment of a , and Ryan, , .
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(“[T]his court will not countenance ‘cross-examination by insinuation’ the sole purpose of which is to leave an impression with the jury of a fact or state of affairs that is not proved, or to get before the jury by indirection that which would not be directly admissible.”).
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Ryan, however, the supreme court recognized well-established Arizona public policy that “ ‘public officers and employees shall be held accountable for their negligent acts in the performance of their official duties.’ ” Ryan, 134 Ariz. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 ( , ).
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
the supreme court interpreted a predecessor statute to § 28-624.
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Ariz.R.Evid., 801(d)(2)(A), 17A A.R.S.; -11 , -56 (1969); , M. Udall and J. Livermore, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence, § 125, p. 257-58 & n. 24 (2d ed. 1981).
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
a state highway patrol officer was sued in tort for damages caused by his alleged negligence.
Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
State v. Wehrhan 542 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Wehrhan 542 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Reese v. Cradit 469 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Reese v. Cradit 469 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
B, , , Babcock v. Tam (9th Cir., 1946) 156 F.2d 116 .
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
Ruth v. Rhodes, [66] Ariz. [129], , and cases cited therein.” *546 The record here indicates that there was ample evidence to support the findings of the trial judge.
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Nelson v. Darling Shop of Birmingham, Inc., 275 Ala.
State v. Saiz 447 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1968
State v. Saiz 447 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1968
: “It is the law that if a statement is made in the presence and hearing of another in regard to facts adversely affecting his rights, and he makes no reply, evidence of such statement and his non-denial thereof is admissible both for impeachment purposes (where he had thereafter testified to the
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
Indeed, , held that a state highway patrolman could be held liable for injuries resulting from his negligent operation of a police vehicle while driving in response to a radio order to proceed to the scene of an automobile accident.
Keplinger v. Boyett 433 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Keplinger v. Boyett 433 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
However, notwithstanding this was a community debt, the separate property of the wife is not liable for a community debt
Sanchez v. Stremel 391 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1964
Sanchez v. Stremel 391 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1964
“[T]his court will not countenance ‘cross-examination by insinuation’ the sole purpose of which is to leave an impression with the jury of a fact or state of affairs that is not proved, or to get before the jury by indirection that which would not be directly admissible.” , .
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission 381 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1963
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission 381 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1963
wherein we held that a state highway patrolman would be liable for injuries resulting from negligence in driving automobile in response to a radio order.
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Humphrey v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
As stated in Ruth v. Rhodes, 1947, , , 308: “* * * [T]his court will not countenance ‘cross-examination by insinuation’ the sole purpose of which is to leave an impression with the jury of a fact or state of affairs that is not proved, or to get before the jury by indirection that which would not be directly admissible.” The trial cou
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. 353 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1960
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. 353 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1960