DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite De Laney v. Gary, 211 P.2d 815.

20 citing documents.

  • Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Clint v. Northern Assur.
  • Carabetta v. Industrial Commission 469 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    361 , : “While it is the law that the commission may reject the testimony of an interested *243 witness, it likewise is the law that it may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances casts suspicion thereon, , ; In re Gary’s Estate, , .” We think the rule is correctly summarized in M. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 3 at 10 (1960), as follows: “As a general rule the jury or other trier of fact is the sole judge
  • Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    359, 361 , : “While it is the law that the commission may reject the testimony of an interested witness, it likewise is the law that it may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances casts suspicion thereon, , ; In re Gary’s Estate, , .” We think the rule is correctly summarized in M. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence Sec.
  • Dumes v. HAROLD LAZ ADVERTISING COMPANY 409 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Russell v. Industrial Commission 402 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1965
    In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , .” 74 Ariz. at 349 , 248 P.2d at 998 .
  • Ft. Mohave Farms, Inc. v. Dunlap 393 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1964
  • England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
  • Ireland v. Industrial Commission 370 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1962
    It is the law of this state that “where evidence of an interested witness is corroborated by disinterested witnesses, a rejection of that evidence amounts to arbitrary action by the triers of fact.” ] ; In re Gary’s Estate, *138
  • Recictenwald v. Lockard 368 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1962
    In re Gary’s Estate, , In re Brelm’s Estate
  • In Re Lamfrom's Estate 368 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1962
  • Buzard v. Griffin 358 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
    In re Gary’s Estate, , .
  • Colmenero Canal Company v. Babers 297 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1956
    49 Am.Jur., Specific Performance, section 23; In re Gary’s Estate, , .
  • Martin v. Industrial Commission 257 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1953
    v. De Johnson, , 286 P. 817 ; In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , ; , .
  • Ratley v. Industrial Commission 248 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1952
    In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , .
  • Wilson v. Metheny 236 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1951
  • Thornburg v. Elgas 228 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1951
    In re Gary’s Estate, , ; , .
  • Stanley v. Moan 227 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1951
    While it is the law that the commission may reject the testimony of an interested witness, it likewise is the law that it may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances casts suspicion thereon, , ; In re Gary’s Estate, , .
  • Clint v. Northern Assur. Co. 223 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1950
    In Re Gary’s Estate, , , and cases cited therein.
  • Bragg v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1950
    In re Gary’s Estate, , extends the above rule.
  • American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Caldwell 216 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1950
    In Re Gary’s Estate, , , this court said: “ * * * We heretofore held 'but they (triers of the facts) may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances of the case casts suspicion thereon.’ (Citing cases.)