DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Drane v. Avery, 231 P.2d 444.

27 citing documents.

  • Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Allied, 65 Ariz. at 290 (1947); see also Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 2.18 cmt.
  • Kadlec v. Dorsey 223 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    ¶ 25, -03, -46 (1951), -18, -04 (1947).
  • Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
  • Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
    (stating that the recordation of a plat containing a dedication of streets, coupled with sale of lots, “constitutes a ‘dedication,’ and use thereof by purchasers of lots and the general public constitutes sufficient acceptance of the dedication”
  • Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    P.2d 480 (1954); P.2d 444 (1951), overruled in part on other grounds, P.2d 1010 (1953); P.2d 1001 (1947); P. 1061 (1906).
  • Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    On the facts presented by appellants, we cannot say that a dedication was made.” , the court said: ( , ) “It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the making and recordation in the county recorder’s office of a city addition plat, showing lots, blocks, dimensions thereof and width of all streets coupled with sales or (sic) lots therein, constitutes
  • Cracchiolo v. State 435 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Cracchiolo v. State 435 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Engler v. Sainer 417 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Engler v. Sainer 417 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    Although we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff-appellant, , In Re Sullenger’s Estate, 2 Ariz.App.
  • Moeur v. City of Tempe 412 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Moeur v. City of Tempe 412 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • County of Yuma v. Leidendeker 303 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1956
  • County of Yuma v. Leidendeker 303 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1956
    Co. v. Pettit, supra; , ; , .
  • Avery v. Drane 271 P.2d 480 Ariz. 1954
  • Avery v. Drane 271 P.2d 480 Ariz. 1954
    *330 This cause has been in this court before ( , ) and the facts developed in the second trial are substantially the same as were developed in the first trial of the case except that the evidence in the last trial disclosed that one of the appellants has constructed further barriers and obstructions in the street since the first trial.
  • Chadwick v. Larsen 254 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1953
  • Chadwick v. Larsen 254 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1953
    which is inconsistent with this ruling is hereby disapproved, viz: “ * * * Such a motion for judgment was made during the progress of the trial and is comparable to a motion for a directed verdict made during the progress of a jury trial.
  • Reese v. De Mund 245 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1952
  • Reese v. De Mund 245 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1952
    This is the view adopted by this court in Thorpe v. Clanton, supra, , .