Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Harlan, 255 P.2d 609.

52 citing documents.

Stephanie Burkett v. John and Anita Dryja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Stephanie Burkett v. John and Anita Dryja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
See id.; -96 (1953) (upholding jury instruction that noise is nuisance if it affects ordinary person “injuriously and to an unreasonable degree” and “exceeds the bounds of reasonable adjustment” to local sounds); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821D cmt.
Bairstow v. Windgate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Bairstow v. Windgate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
3 As the superior court noted in its prior denial of the Auslooses’ motion to dismiss, the claim as presented may be light, but it is not so deficient that a reasonable person would be unable to believe Bairstow’s testimony and conclude that the noise constituted a substantial and unreasonable invasion on
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Klimkowski v. De La Torre 857 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Klimkowski v. De La Torre 857 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services 712 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1985
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services 712 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1985
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
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Southern Arizona Freight Lines, , , 262 P. 609 (1928).
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
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
State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Young Mines Co. v. Citizens’ State Bank, , 296 P. 247 (1931).
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Phoenix v. Harlan, [ , ] supra; , .
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 445 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 445 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kotsonaros v. State of Minn[esota], , ; City of Phoenix v. Harlan, supra [ , ]; , .
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
However, , : “ ‘In passing upon the correctness and propriety of instructions, a reviewing court is required to consider the charge as a whole, rather than to search for technical defects, verbal inaccuracies, or insufficiencies which may appear in individual instructions or portions thereof when examined apart fr
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
idered as a whole, and that a case will not be reversed when the alleged error is predicated on an isolated part of the instructions, unless it appears that the questioned instruction, when considered in connection with all the instructions in the case, was calculated to mislead the jury as to the law.’ “ , ; , .” 82 Ariz. at 246 , 311 P.2d at 841 .
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Humphrey v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McMinn 355 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1960
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McMinn 355 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1960
Pima County v. Bilby 351 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1960
Pima County v. Bilby 351 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1960
Hoge v. Southern Pacific Co. 339 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1959
Hoge v. Southern Pacific Co. 339 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1959
Thus, understood in the context of the whole charge — as it must be, , — the instruction here reviewed, we think, did not mislead the jury, or infect the verdict rendered with prejudicial error, contrary to the statute cited.
Jost v. Ross 311 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1957
Jost v. Ross 311 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1957
sidered as a whole, and that a case will not be reversed when the alleged error is predicated on an isolated part of the instructions, unless it appears that the questioned instruction, when considered in connection with all the instructions in the case, was calculated to mislead the jury as to the law.” , ; , *247 We have carefully studied the instructions given by the trial court in this case and we do not hesitate to state that, as a whole, they correctly state the law of the case.
Musgrave v. Githens 294 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1956
Musgrave v. Githens 294 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1956
Tucker v. Collar 285 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1955
Tucker v. Collar 285 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1955
General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954
General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954