Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

Thornton v. Marsico 425 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Thornton v. Marsico 425 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Thunderbird Metallurgical Inc. v. Arizona Testing Laboratories 423 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Thunderbird Metallurgical Inc. v. Arizona Testing Laboratories 423 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects 415 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1966
Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects 415 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1966
Nichols v. Elkins 408 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Nichols v. Elkins 408 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Our Supreme Court, recognizing that good will of a business may be a valuable asset, referred to it as a “fleeting, intangible something.”
Gilmore v. Cohen 386 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1963
Gilmore v. Cohen 386 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1963
Purvis v. Silva 381 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1963
Purvis v. Silva 381 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1963
: “It is a well established rule in this state that loss of profits from the destruction or interruption of an established business may be recovered if the amount of actual loss is rendered reasonably certain by competent proof, (cases cited.)” See also Ludwigsen v. Larsen, supra.
Grummel v. Hollenstein 367 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1962
Grummel v. Hollenstein 367 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1962
: “ * * * where, * * * 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
A. R. A. Manufacturing Co. v. Pierce 341 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1959
A. R. A. Manufacturing Co. v. Pierce 341 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1959
McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. D’Ascoli, , .
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
McNutt Oil & Refining Company v. D'ASCOLI 281 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1955
McNutt Oil & Refining Company v. D'ASCOLI 281 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1955
loss of future profits are recoverable in an action of this kind and that plaintiffs exhausted their remedy for breach of the restrictive covenant in their contract with plaintiffs when they recovered and had satisfied their judgment of $500 against the Gajewskis.
O'HARA v. Lance 267 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1954
O'HARA v. Lance 267 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1954
Stallcup v. Rathbun 258 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1953
Stallcup v. Rathbun 258 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1953
Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Aetna Investment Corp. 245 P.2d 423 Ariz. 1952
Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Aetna Investment Corp. 245 P.2d 423 Ariz. 1952
wherein the court quoted the following from Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 , 51 S.Ct.
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinson 238 P.2d 937 Ariz. 1951
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinson 238 P.2d 937 Ariz. 1951
On the question of granting a new trial for improper conduct of a , , 736: “ * * * In view of the fact that the verdict was unanimous and the experience and learned trial judge, by denying the motion for a new trial, determined that no prejudice had resulted, we are not disposed to disturb his ruling.
Horn v. Ruess 231 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1951
Horn v. Ruess 231 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1951
Alabam Freight Lines v. Thevenot 204 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1949

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by