Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eldredge v. Miller, 277 P.2d 239.

32 citing documents.

A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
("in most jurisdictions the rule is that consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary”); , ("there is no constitutional requirement that verdicts be consistent”); -47 , ("To vitiate two verdicts because of inconsistency, they must necessarily be based on inconsistent findings of fact.
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(“To vitiate two verdicts because of inconsistency, they must necessarily be based on inconsistent findings of fact.”).
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Simkins v. Pulley 569 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Simkins v. Pulley 569 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Neither of the parties, nor this Court, have discovered any prior Arizona authority directly in point, although the question is touched upon in *490 , in which the Arizona Supreme Court indicates, but does not hold, that inconsistent verdicts which are necessarily based on inconsistent findings of fact must both be set aside.
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Esqui-vel v. Nancarrow, supra
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
O'BRIEN v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County 457 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1969
State v. DeRoss 454 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. DeRoss 454 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Our Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of the portion of Rule 51(a) quoted above is “ * * * to give counsel an opportunity to argue the facts in the light of the law as it will be announced insofar as covered by the request.”
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Tucson Utility Supplies, Inc. v. Gallagher 433 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1967
Tucson Utility Supplies, Inc. v. Gallagher 433 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1967
Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
McKeever v. Phoenix Jewish Community Center 374 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1962
McKeever v. Phoenix Jewish Community Center 374 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1962
Gilbert v. Quinet 369 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1962
Gilbert v. Quinet 369 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1962
State v. Simmering 361 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1961
Crouch v. Pixler 320 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1958
Crouch v. Pixler 320 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1958