Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nichols v. City of Phoenix, 202 P.2d 201.

92 citing documents.

Figueroa v. Majors 338 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1959
Figueroa v. Majors 338 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1959
Matsumato v. Arizona Sand & Rock Company, , , 56 A.L.R.2d 1385 ; , ; , ; , .
Casey v. Beaudry Motor Company 315 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1957
Casey v. Beaudry Motor Company 315 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1957
or stated another way: “Negligence only becomes a question of law for the court’s determination when rational minds may not draw different conclusions from the undisputed evidence.” , ; and for the latest expression thereon see, Matsumato v.
Matsumato v. Arizona Sand and Rock Company 295 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1956
Matsumato v. Arizona Sand and Rock Company 295 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1956
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Mitchell 292 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1956
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Mitchell 292 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1956
hey admit: “The question for determination by the court is whether or not under all of the evidence in the case reasonable men could escape the conclusion that the sole proximate cause of any injury suffered by the plaintiff was the negligence of Verdell Reese.” , .
Sanders v. Beckwith 283 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1955
Sanders v. Beckwith 283 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1955
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cornum, , ; , .
Pena v. Stewart 278 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1955
Pena v. Stewart 278 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1955
Moore v. Southwestern Sash & Door Co., , ; , .
Picow v. Baldwin 272 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1954
Picow v. Baldwin 272 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1954
Crouse v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. 272 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1954
Crouse v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. 272 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1954
The problem of proximate causation has received consideration by this court in many cases, , 190 P. 88 ; , 190 P. 573 ; Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cornum, , ; , ; , .
Henderson v. Breesman 269 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1954
Henderson v. Breesman 269 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1954
MacKey v. Blakely Oil, Inc. 268 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1954
MacKey v. Blakely Oil, Inc. 268 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1954
Walter v. Southern Arizona School for Boys, Inc. 267 P.2d 1076 Ariz. 1954
Walter v. Southern Arizona School for Boys, Inc. 267 P.2d 1076 Ariz. 1954
at page 129, at page 204; Cope v. Southern Pac.
McClinton v. Rice 265 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1953
McClinton v. Rice 265 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1953
wherein we said: “Ordinarily an appellate court in determining an appeal views the evidence, where it is conflicting, in the light most favorable to a sustaining of the lower court’s judgment.
Edwards v. Gaston 252 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1953
Edwards v. Gaston 252 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1953
Anderson v. Morgan 241 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1952
Anderson v. Morgan 241 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1952
Bassett v. Ryan 236 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1951
Bassett v. Ryan 236 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1951
The general rule governing directed verdicts was recently laid down by this court, , , as follows: “A motion of this kind is regarded as admitting the truth of whatever competent evidence the opposing party had introduced *387 including the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and it is only where the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict, or where it is so weak tha
Wilson v. Metheny 236 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1951
Wilson v. Metheny 236 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1951
Drane v. Avery 231 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1951
Drane v. Avery 231 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1951
we quote: "Ordinarily an appellate court in determining an appeal views the evidence, where it is conflicting, in the light most favorable to a sustaining of the lower court's judgment.
Dungan v. Brandenberg 230 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1951
Dungan v. Brandenberg 230 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1951
* * * ” , , this court points out: “Ordinarily -an appellate court in determining an appeal views the evidence, where it is conflicting, in the light most favorable to a sustaining of the lower court’s judgment.
Moore v. Southwestern Sash & Door Co. 228 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1951
Moore v. Southwestern Sash & Door Co. 228 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1951
We necessarily view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, , , but even in so doing the conclusion seems inescapable that the sole cause of plaintiff’s injury was his own negligence.
Krauth v. Billar 226 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1951
Krauth v. Billar 226 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1951
Gallaway v. Smith 220 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1950
Gallaway v. Smith 220 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1950
204: “ * * * A motion of this kind is regarded as admitting the truth of whatever competent evidence the opposing party had introduced including the -reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and it is, only where the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict, or where it is so weak that upon a

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by