Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sanders v. Brown, 238 P.2d 941.

49 citing documents.

Way v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Way v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
whether [amendment] should be permitted.”
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 664 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1983
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 664 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1983
Bisnett v. Mowder 560 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Bisnett v. Mowder 560 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
* * * ‘ * * * However, the rule is that a host who knows of a concealed danger upon the premises is guilty of negligence if he permits the guest, unwarned of the peril, to come in contact therewith, and he may be held liable to the guest for an injury thus sustained.’ , -945 .” Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., supra, 102 Ariz. at 316 , 428 P.2d at 994 .
Romo v. Reyes 548 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Romo v. Reyes 548 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Robles v. Severyn 504 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Robles v. Severyn 504 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Restatement 2d Torts § 342, Reporter’s , : “ .
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
218 P. 152 (1923); , Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., supra.
Zellerbach Paper Company v. Valley National Bank 477 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Zellerbach Paper Company v. Valley National Bank 477 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a)
Downey v. Lackey 466 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Downey v. Lackey 466 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Owen v. Mecham 454 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Owen v. Mecham 454 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
* * * ‘ * * * However, the rule is that a host who knows of a concealed danger upon the premises is guilty of negligence if he permits the guest, unwarned of the peril, to come in contact therewith, and he may be held liable to the guest for an injury thus sustained.’ ” , -945 .
Contractor & Mining Service & Supply, Inc. v. H & M Tractor & Bearing Corp. 417 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Contractor & Mining Service & Supply, Inc. v. H & M Tractor & Bearing Corp. 417 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 412 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 412 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
and the authorities cited therein.
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Cordova v. City of Tucson 407 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Cordova v. City of Tucson 407 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 371 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1962
Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 371 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1962
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
Swift v. City of Phoenix 367 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1961
Swift v. City of Phoenix 367 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1961
Parker's Hamburger Number One v. Fitzgerald 356 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1960
Parker's Hamburger Number One v. Fitzgerald 356 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1960
tous licensee: For an active act of negligence causing injury when the owner knows or is charged with knowledge of the presence of the licensee, or when the possessor without warning or other protective measures creates or permits the existence of hidden perils commonly called pitfalls or traps of which the licensee has no knowledge or cannot be charged with knowledge.” , ; , 218 P. 152 .
Phoenix Auto Auction, Inc. v. State Automobile Insurance 346 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1959
Phoenix Auto Auction, Inc. v. State Automobile Insurance 346 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1959
Appellant contends that where there is no conflict in the facts, this court is “not bound by the conclusions of the trial court, but are at liberty to draw our own legal conclusions from the admitted facts.” , ; Hansen v. Oakley, supra.
Meyer v. Mitchell 80 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1957
Mull v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 272 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1954
Mull v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 272 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1954
Read Mullan Motor Co. v. McAtee 268 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1954
Read Mullan Motor Co. v. McAtee 268 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1954
ence adduced relating to the facts and circumstances surrounding the adoption of the resolution or the acts of the parties relating thereto so that assuming its ambiguity, it still presents a question of law and under the situation here presented this court is not bound by the interpretation given it by the lower court, McFadden, Sheriff, v. Watson, , ; , , although its conclusion should be given careful consideration.
Hansen v. Oakley 263 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1953
Hansen v. Oakley 263 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1953
and cases therein cited.
Leigh v. Swartz 245 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1952
Leigh v. Swartz 245 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1952
L The spirit and purpose of allowing these amendments is for the case to be ultimately tried on its merits so that the parties to the litigation, in one trial, will receive all the relief to which they are entitled.
Cavness v. Industrial Commission 243 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1952
Cavness v. Industrial Commission 243 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1952
.6, , and the authorities therein cited.