Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jacob v. Miner, 191 P.2d 734.

82 citing documents.

State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-37 (1948)(“Another factor enters into our ruling; i.e. the defendants by their affidavits establish that they knew of the [juror misconduct] now complained of before the trial of the case was concluded yet failed to report the same to the court.
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
In Arizona, it has been defined as “that asset, intangible in form, which is an element responsible for profits in a business.”
Quiroga v. Allstate Insurance 726 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Quiroga v. Allstate Insurance 726 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Spheeris v. Spheeris, 37 Wis.2d 497 , 155 N.W.2d 130 (1967); and Holbrook v. Holbrook, supra.
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Edmond v. Fairfield Sunrise Village, Inc. 644 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Edmond v. Fairfield Sunrise Village, Inc. 644 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Wisner v. Wisner 631 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wisner v. Wisner 631 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In Arizona, goodwill has been defined as “[T]hat asset, intangible in form, which is an element responsible for profits in a business.”
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Ironically, the court in Stalicup first pointed out its earlier difficulty in dealing with the problem: It would appear that this court inadvertently failed to properly differentiate between a verdict influenced by passion and prejudice and one that is merely excessive in the decisions rendered in: , ; Jacob v. Miner, [ , ] supra; Alabam Freight Liner v. Thevenot (both majority and minority opinions), , ; , .
SOUTHERN ARIZ. SCH. FOR BOYS, INC. v. Chery 580 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
SOUTHERN ARIZ. SCH. FOR BOYS, INC. v. Chery 580 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
E-Z Livin' Mobile Homes, , Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc.
L. H. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Granger 543 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1975
L. H. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Granger 543 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1975
Hercules Drayage Co., Inc. v. Chanco Leasing Corp. 540 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hercules Drayage Co., Inc. v. Chanco Leasing Corp. 540 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 535 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1975
Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 535 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1975
Craviolini v. Scholer and Fuller, etc.
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
Valley National Bank v. Brown 517 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1974
Valley National Bank v. Brown 517 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1974
Morton v. Rogers 514 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Morton v. Rogers 514 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hall v. Motorists Insurance Corporation 509 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1973
Hall v. Motorists Insurance Corporation 509 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1973
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
tion is fundamental for where, as here, it clearly appears that a party has suffered damage, a more liberal rule should be applied in allowing the court or jury to determine the amount of the damage than should be applied in weighing evidence on the question of whether or not the acts complained of will result in any damage at all to the party upon whom rests the burden of proof.” , 739 (1948).
EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY v. Tesmer Manufacturing Co. 459 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY v. Tesmer Manufacturing Co. 459 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Harris Cattle Co. v. Paradise Motors, Inc., , , , 11 A.L.R.3d 714 (1963); , modified, , , 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages Sec.
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Thunderbird Metallurgical, Inc. v. Arizona Testing Laboratories, 5 Ariz.App.
Harris Cattle Co. v. Paradise Motors, Inc. 448 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1968
Harris Cattle Co. v. Paradise Motors, Inc. 448 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1968
33,128 Number of Salesmen per Schedule 2 (b) J,6_ 221/S Average Profit per Salesman [Item (a) divided by Item (b)] $ 1,978 $ 1,472 “Computation of Business Interruption Loss Average Profit per Salesman—1962 $ 1,978 Average Profit per Salesman—1963 1,472 Decrease (c) $ 506 Number of Salesmen in 1963 (d) 22i/£ Business Interruption Loss [Item (c) multiplied by Item (d)] $ 11,385” , , we held: “It is a well established rule in this state that loss of profits from the destruction or interruption of
Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. v. Ellsworth 446 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1968
Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. v. Ellsworth 446 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1968
11 A.L.R.3d 714 ; , ; , ; , .
Worthington v. Funk 442 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Worthington v. Funk 442 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Harris Cattle Co. v. Madison Chevrolet, Inc. 438 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Harris Cattle Co. v. Madison Chevrolet, Inc. 438 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Among the opinions are: , 288 P. 1029 (1930); , 192 P. 249 (1920); , McNutt Oil & Refining Company v. D’Ascoli, , , , , 11 A.L.R.3d 714 (1963).
Swinehart v. Baker 429 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Swinehart v. Baker 429 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967