Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ong v. Pacific Finance Corp. of California, 222 P.2d 801.

29 citing documents.

Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
(proposed courtroom demonstration in slip-and-fall case would have been reversible error because conditions in courtroom bore no resemblance to conditions where fall occurred); State v. Buelna, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The admission of experimental evidence rests very largely in the discretion of the trial judge and the exercise of this discretion will not be controlled unless manifestly abused, (footnotes omitted); accord, , State v. Buelna, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Buelna 544 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Buelna 544 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Martinez v. Lucky Stores, Inc. 502 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Martinez v. Lucky Stores, Inc. 502 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Finance Corp., , a slip and fall case, as authority for its direction of verdict.
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
as supporting its position.
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
189 , 229 S.W.2d 610 ), in which the court said: “One is not required to anticipate unusual or substandard behavior.” , , in which the.
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
Plummer v. Port of New York Authority, Sup., 146 N.Y.S.
City of Phoenix v. Boggs 403 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
City of Phoenix v. Boggs 403 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
It is true that in order to admit evidence of this nature the condition shown must be the same or substantially the same as that existing at the time of the accident, which condition it is claimed caused the accident and upon which the negligence of appellee is based, , and that where the fact situation has inherent in it the likelihood of change, testimony concerning the situation which is presumed to continue, must be fairly close in its general character to the event which is presumed to cont
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Goodman v. Carson 325 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1958
Goodman v. Carson 325 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1958
Swetnam v. FW Woolworth Company 318 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1957
Swetnam v. FW Woolworth Company 318 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1957
Hansen v. Oakley 263 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1953
Hansen v. Oakley 263 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1953
Glowacki v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 263 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1953
Glowacki v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 263 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1953