DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kauffroath v. Wilbur, 185 P.2d 522.

39 citing documents.

  • Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Assignments of error based upon the weight of evidence cannot be considered if there is any evidence to support the trial court’s finding even though the weight of the evidence be against that finding.” , There is testimony in the record, some of which is corroborated by the plaintiff, which supports the jury verdict.
  • McElwain v. Schuckert 477 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • McElwain v. Schuckert 477 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    See e. g., A. N. S. Properties, Inc. v. Gough Industries, Inc.
  • Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
  • Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
    this Court said: “Defendant’s third assignment of error, ‘That the verdict is not sustained by the weight of the evidence’ is likewise without merit.
  • Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 420 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1966
  • Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 420 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1966
    Viliborghi v. Prescott School Dist.
  • Harbel Oil Company v. Steele 402 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Harbel Oil Company v. Steele 402 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    Assignments of error based upon the weight of evidence cannot be considered if there is any evidence to support the trial court’s finding even though the weight of the evidence be against that finding.” at 156
  • Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co. v. Narramore 378 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1963
  • Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co. v. Narramore 378 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1963
    nion thereof for that of the trial court (citing cases) ; that evidence will be taken in the strongest manner in favor of the appellee and in support of the court’s findings (citing cases); and that a judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it (citing cases).” This is true even though the weight of the evidence be against that finding, , , and cases cited therein.
  • Rossi v. Stewart 367 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1961
  • Rossi v. Stewart 367 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1961
    Viliborghi v. Prescott School Dist., etc.
  • Kellogg v. Bowen 337 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1959
  • Kellogg v. Bowen 337 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1959
    Viliborghi v. Prescott School Dist No. 1, , .
  • Romero v. Cooper 325 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1958
  • Romero v. Cooper 325 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1958
  • Marcione v. Marcione 289 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1955
  • Marcione v. Marcione 289 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1955
    is to the effect that a general allegation of negligence stated a cause of action under our rules of pleading and if defendant wanted any further information he could have asked for a bill of particulars setting up the negligent acts relied upon.
  • General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954
  • General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954
  • Edwards v. Gaston 252 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1953
  • Edwards v. Gaston 252 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1953
  • State v. Chee 250 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1952
  • State v. Chee 250 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1952
    Changes in the rules of civil procedure paralleling in point of time those adopted for procedure in criminal causes have been many times given effect, e. g., , ; and logically there is to be found no distinction to justify the acceptance of one code of rules, and the rejection of the other.
  • Reese v. De Mund 245 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1952
  • Reese v. De Mund 245 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1952
    eader is entitled to relief.’ * * In Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 774, 775 , the court says that under the new rules of civil procedure: “ * * * there is no pleading requirement of stating ‘facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,’ but only that there be ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ * * , , the complaint contained a general charge of negligence without specification as to what the negligence consisted of.
  • Tipton v. Burson 238 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1951
  • Tipton v. Burson 238 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1951
  • Huish v. Lopez 218 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1950
  • Huish v. Lopez 218 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1950
    1939, a motion for more definite statement or for bill of particulars is properly presented only where the pleading attacked is so vague or ambiguous that the moving party can not frame an answer thereto, , 190 P. 77 ; , 141 P. 736 ; , ; Brinley v. Lewis, D.C., 27 F. Supp. 313 ; and the words or “to prepare for trial”, as used in this rule, are -to be read with an effect substantially equal to the phrase, “prepare his responsive pleading”.
  • Porterfield v. Black Bill & Doney Parks Water Users' Ass'n 210 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1949
  • Porterfield v. Black Bill & Doney Parks Water Users' Ass'n 210 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1949
    No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.” , .
  • Valley Transp. System v. Reinartz 197 P.2d 269 Ariz. 1948
  • Valley Transp. System v. Reinartz 197 P.2d 269 Ariz. 1948
  • Lundberg v. Bolon 194 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1948
  • Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947
  • Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947