Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Town of Williams v. Perrin, 217 P.2d 918.

32 citing documents.

Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court 83 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court 83 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
The County then urges that it has the right under Arizona’s eminent domain statutes, indeed the obligation, to “take only what it needs.” 2 See
State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
See, e.g., Diaz, 168 Ariz. at 365 , 813 P.2d at 730 (invited error is waived for appeal purposes); , (party cannot object on appeal to a requested instruction); , (court refused to consider as grounds of error instructions requested by defendant); , (“A party may not complain of instructions given at his request and is bound by the theory of his own instructions.”); Sisson, 16 Ariz. at 175 , 141 P. at 714-15 .
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 629 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 629 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Sears therefore is bound by the theory of those instructions, , and is deemed to have admitted that there was evidence to support them.
Department of Revenue v. Transamerica Title Insurance 570 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Department of Revenue v. Transamerica Title Insurance 570 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Overruled on other grounds
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goslin v. Bacome 489 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1971
Goslin v. Bacome 489 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1971
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Mestas 469 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Choisser v. State Ex Rel. Herman 469 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Choisser v. State Ex Rel. Herman 469 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Mestas 469 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Andrew Brown Company v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 466 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Andrew Brown Company v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 466 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
United States v. Certain Interests in Property, 326 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1964), cert.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
in passing upon the related but separate problem of whether comparable sales are admissible at all as direct proof, our Supreme Court expressly adopted the “Massachusetts rule,” ( 70 Ariz. at 163 , ) which permits the introduction of evidence of comparable sales on direct examinatio
Verdugo v. Po Shing Gee 417 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Verdugo v. Po Shing Gee 417 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co. 370 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1962
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co. 370 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1962
236 P. 704 ; , 199 P. 124 .
State v. McDonald 352 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1960
State v. McDonald 352 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1960
County of Maricopa v. Shell Oil Company 327 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1958
County of Maricopa v. Shell Oil Company 327 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1958
State v. Taylor 312 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1957
State v. Taylor 312 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1957

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by