Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Julian v. Carpenter, 176 P.2d 693.
- State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
State v. Flores
454 P.2d 172
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
265 P. 84 (1928); , 147 P. 701 (1915)
- Heeter v. Moore Drug Company 448 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1968
-
Heeter v. Moore Drug Company
448 P.2d 391
Ariz. 1968
Costello v. Cun *44 ningham, , 147 P. 701 (1915).
- Smith v. Superior Equipment Co. 428 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1967
-
Smith v. Superior Equipment Co.
428 P.2d 998
Ariz. 1967
Rule 8(f), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; , ; , .
- Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp. v. Harborlite Corp. 419 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp. v. Harborlite Corp. 419 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Safeway Stores, Incorporated v. Cone 406 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
-
Safeway Stores, Incorporated v. Cone
406 P.2d 869
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
the assignment by appellant that the evidence failed to warrant or justify any judgment in favor of the plaintiff was disposed of in part by the court stating: “•* * * it is the universal rule that an appellate court will not con-side'r the question of the sufficiency of the evidence where the r
- American Surety Company of New York v. Nash 389 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1964
- American Surety Company of New York v. Nash 389 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1964
- Gabitzsch v. Cole 386 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1963
- Gabitzsch v. Cole 386 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1963
- Mackey v. Philzona Petroleum Co. 367 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1961
- Mackey v. Philzona Petroleum Co. 367 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1961
- Union Interchange, Inc. v. Mortensen 366 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1961
- Union Interchange, Inc. v. Mortensen 366 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1961
- Odom v. First National Bank of Arizona 336 P.2d 141 Ariz. 1959
- Odom v. First National Bank of Arizona 336 P.2d 141 Ariz. 1959
- Dixon v. Feffer 327 P.2d 994 Ariz. 1958
-
Dixon v. Feffer
327 P.2d 994
Ariz. 1958
plaintiffs were not required to elect upon which cause of action they would stand before the case was submitted to the jury.
- Bowman v. Hall 316 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1957
-
Bowman v. Hall
316 P.2d 484
Ariz. 1957
ise, as distinguished from a mere arbitrary, use of power, and under the law.” , 265 P. 84, 86 , that the trial court had a wide discretion in such matters “and should exercise such discretion liberally wherever and whenever it is necessary or proper to a just disposition of the rights of the litigants.” Other decisions, , , disclose that this court has consistently upheld the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in permitting the reopening of cases for the taking of additional testimony.
- Rogers v. Greer 219 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1950
- Rogers v. Greer 219 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1950
- Sligh v. Watson 214 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1950
- Sligh v. Watson 214 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1950
- De Laney v. Gary 211 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1949
- In Re Gary's Estate 211 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1949
- De Laney v. Gary 211 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1949
- In Re Gary's Estate 211 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1949
- Amedio v. Canavan 210 P.2d 226 Ariz. 1949
-
Amedio v. Canavan
210 P.2d 226
Ariz. 1949
There being but the one cause of action stated in the complaint we deem it unnecessary to apply the liberal provisions of section 21-408, A.C.A.1939, relating to pleading in the alternative, , , cited by plaintiffs.
- In Re Balke's Estate 206 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1949
- Byrd v. Cieplak 206 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1949
- Byrd v. Cieplak 206 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1949
- In Re Balke's Estate 206 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1949
- Smith v. Pinner 201 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1948
- Smith v. Pinner 201 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1948
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 177 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1947
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 177 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1947