Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schmerfeld v. Hendry, 245 P.2d 420.

48 citing documents.

Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
247 P. 122 (1926); Liberatore .
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
For example, the following instruction has been approved: “[A] driver is not required to anticipate the sudden appearance of children in his pathway under ordinary circumstances.”
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
the misconduct was of so serious a nature that no admonition or instructions by the court could undo the damage.” , ( , 247 P. 122, 125 ).
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
McFarlin v. Hall 619 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1980
McFarlin v. Hall 619 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1980
Parrisella v. Fotopulos 522 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1974
Parrisella v. Fotopulos 522 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1974
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
he court erred in instructing the jury that, “The driver is not required to anticipate the sudden appearance of children in the driver’s pathway under ordinary circumstances.” In support of the instruction the defendant cites Womack v. Banner Bakery, Inc., , where the Supreme Court stated: “ , , wherein we approved an instruction that a driver is not required to anticipate the sudden appearance of children in his pathway under ordinary circumstances.
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
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
: “ * * * Plaintiff made no objection to the statement at the, time, which if made would have given the trial court the opportunity to instruct the jury to disregard the remarks.
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 455 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1969
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 455 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
A court cannot give every instruction requested, merely because it is correct, and there is some doubt whether the above deleted words would have been correct in the light of the evidence in the instant case, , , in which we held that it was proper to instruct that “a driver is not required to anticipate the sudden appearance of children in his pathway under ordinary circumstances.” In any event, reading the instructions as a whole, we' can see no rea *214 son to require the giving of that part
Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
Mahoney v. Frost 419 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1966
Mahoney v. Frost 419 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1966
Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
Lashinsky v. Hoffman 411 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Lashinsky v. Hoffman 411 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Kostolansky v. Lesher 387 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1963
Kostolansky v. Lesher 387 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1963
Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya 372 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1962
Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya 372 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1962
State Ex Rel. Willey v. Whitman 370 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1962
State Ex Rel. Willey v. Whitman 370 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1962
It will not be presumed that an error is prejudicial so as to require reversal, but the prejudice must appear from the record, , ; , ; , .
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Sult v. Bolenbach 327 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1958
Sult v. Bolenbach 327 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1958
Womack v. Banner Bakery, Inc. 297 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1956
Womack v. Banner Bakery, Inc. 297 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1956
wherein we approved an instruction that a driver is not required to anticipate the sudden appearance of children in his pathway under ordinary circumstances.
Bruno v. San Xavier Rock & Sand Co. 263 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1953
Bruno v. San Xavier Rock & Sand Co. 263 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1953