Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Leigh v. Swartz, 245 P.2d 262.

71 citing documents.

State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Teresa F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Teresa F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2007) (holding objections raised for the first time on appeal are waived) ( ).
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal. 739 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1987
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal. 739 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1987
However, the contention appears to have been at least partially successful in the trial court and to have led to the erroneous “concert of action instructions.” We further note that the “concert of action”
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. 739 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. 739 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pearll v. Selective Life Insurance Co., 8 Ariz.App.
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Conchin v. El Paso & S. W.R.
Smith v. Continental Bank 636 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1981
Smith v. Continental Bank 636 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1981
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
City of Tucson v. Farness, 19 Ariz.App.
Apache Playtime, Inc. v. Universal Playtime, Inc. 552 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Apache Playtime, Inc. v. Universal Playtime, Inc. 552 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Evans v. Lundgren, 11 Ariz.App.
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
* * * ” The purpose of this rule, allowing amendments of pleadings to conform to the evidence, is to permit the case to be ultimately tried on its merits so that the parties to the litigation may, in one trial, receive all relief to which they are entitled, , , and also to prevent a multiplicity of suits.
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Aritex Land Company v. Baker 482 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Aritex Land Company v. Baker 482 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Gustafson v. Riggs 456 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Gustafson v. Riggs 456 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Pearll v. Selective Life Insurance Co. 444 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Pearll v. Selective Life Insurance Co. 444 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
our Supreme Court stated: “ * * * we do not believe that such a broad delegation of power from a principal to an agent justifies an assumption that the agent is thereby at liberty to make false and fraudulent representations to a prospective purchaser.
Rogers v. House 435 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Rogers v. House 435 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 420 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1966
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 420 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1966
that this type of amendment should be liberally allowed, and it is within -the discretion of the trial court.
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
Therefore if evidence is presented in the trial of a case which presents a new or different theory from that alleged in the pleadings, and the adverse party does not object to the introduction of that evidence, that issue is then tried by implied consent and the pleadings, upon request of counsel, should be amended to conform to the evidence.” -113 , , (1952).
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
O'Malley v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative, Inc. 387 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1963
O'Malley v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative, Inc. 387 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1963
The issues of title and the corresponding rights were thus tried by implied consent of the parties, , and will be treated as if raised in the pleadings.
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hale 386 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1963
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hale 386 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1963
e instructed that any offer made by the defendant to settle the claim of the plaintiff is not to be considered by you as an admission of liability on the part of the defendant and you shall disregard such evidence in determining the liability, if any, of the defendant.” The general rule and one which we here reaffirm is that settlement negotiations are not admissible in evidence, , .
Electrical Advertising, Inc. v. Sakato 381 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1963
Electrical Advertising, Inc. v. Sakato 381 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Thé non-ádmissibility of an evidential fact fór' one purpose does not prevent its admission • for any purpose otherwise proper: American Smelting & , ; , ; , .
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
This court has recognized the well established rule that evidence inadmissible for one purpose may be admissible for another purpose