Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McClinton v. Rice, 265 P.2d 425.

65 citing documents.

NOVALIS-MARINE v. MONASH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
However, Novalis-Marine argues that this requirement would be futile and conflicts with our supreme court’s
STEPHENS v. STATE Ariz. 2026
See Bradshaw, 157 Ariz. at 417; see also Carroll, 112 Ariz. at 596 (“Upon the appearances presented to the defendant, would a reasonably prudent man have instituted or continued the proceeding?” (citation modified) ()).
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(explaining that the test is: “would a reasonably prudent man have instituted or continued the proceeding?”); see generally Restatement (Second) of Torts § 674 (1977) (a party may bring a WICP claim against one who “takes an active part in the initiation, continuation or procurement of c
Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
‘[U]pon the ap *420 pearances presented to the defendant, would a reasonably prudent man have instituted or continued the proceeding?’ ” Carroll, 112 Ariz. at 596 , 545 P.2d at 412 ( ).
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
The test generally applied is: upon the appearances presented to the defendant, would a reasonably prudent man have instituted or continued the proceeding?” (citations omitted).
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
at 320 , 678 P.2d at 505 ( , ).
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 320, 678 P.2d at 505 ( , ).
Smith v. Lucia 842 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Lucia 842 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bradshaw holds, “If the operative facts are undisputed, the existence of probable cause is a question of law to be determined solely by the court.” Id., 157 Ariz. at 419 , 758 P.2d at 1321 ; , 367
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Hockett v. City of Tucson 678 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hockett v. City of Tucson 678 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
Walsh v. Eberlein 560 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Walsh v. Eberlein 560 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Slade v. City of Phoenix, supra
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Moten 558 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Moten 558 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Moten had committed the assault was the only statement made by Sears in which there was a factual dispute as to truthfulness, truthfulness being a defense
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
P.2d 425 (1953); , Todd v. Melcher, 11 Ariz.App.
Carroll v. Kalar 545 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1976
Carroll v. Kalar 545 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1976
Slade v. City of Phoenix 541 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1975
Slade v. City of Phoenix 541 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1975
Hymer v. Moore 504 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hymer v. Moore 504 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Watzek v. Walker 485 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Watzek v. Walker 485 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison 484 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison 484 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The test generally applied is: upon appearances presented to the defendant, would a reasonably prudent man have instituted or continued the proceeding?”
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
Richardson v. Casey 430 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Richardson v. Casey 430 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Wise 419 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1966
State v. Wise 419 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1966