Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Butane Corporation v. Kirby, 187 P.2d 325.

96 citing documents.

Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(citing McGuire v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Phx., ).
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
1 1 –07, 294 P. 276, 279 (1930), Young Mines Co. v. Citizens’ St.
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Borland v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 709 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Borland v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 709 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 699 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 699 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jackson v. Cartwright School District 607 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Jackson v. Cartwright School District 607 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Menendez v. Bartlett 607 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Menendez v. Bartlett 607 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
1 Appellants point out that it has long been the law in Arizona that a finding of gross negligence automatically precludes consideration of the defense of contributory negligence, , with the exception that a plaintiff’s gross or wanton contributory negligence may be balanced against the gross or wanton negligence of the defendant, so as to bar plaintiff’s recovery.
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
wherein the Court stated: “An instruction not based upon the evidence in the case is misleading and calculated to induce the jury to suppose that such a state of facts, in the opinion of the court, is possible and may be considered by them.” In the instant litigation, this principle must be
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
Slight and inconclusive evidence is not enough, , : “Slight and inconclusive evidence borders on the realm of conjecture.
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Salinas v. Kahn, 2 Ariz.App.
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 470 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 470 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Esqui-vel v. Nancarrow, supra
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
See: , 216 P. 246 ; , ; , ; , ; , 245 P. 673 .
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc.
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
: “An instruction not based upon the evidence in the case is misleading and calculated to induce the jury to suppose that such a state of facts, in the opinion of the court, is possible and may be considered by them.” , , this Court made the following stat
Berne v. Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc. 448 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1968
Berne v. Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc. 448 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1968
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In this state, it is reversible error to give an instruction on a legal theory as to which there is not substantial evidence, , Salinas v. Kahn, 2 Ariz.App.
Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
Schmidt v. Gibbons 412 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Schmidt v. Gibbons 412 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Robledo v. Kopp 409 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1965
Robledo v. Kopp 409 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1965
we rejected the "range of vision" rule and held: "* * * [T]he driver of an automobile at night is not required under all circumstances to see any object in the road in front of him which comes within the radius of his lights and be able under all circumstances to stop his car before striking the objec
LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965