DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murillo v. Hernandez, 281 P.2d 786.

113 citing documents.

  • Recictenwald v. Lockard 368 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1962
    rule that the law of the place of the making governs the validity of a contract, the courts, in their effort to protect and promote the welfare of the child, have given effect to a contract to adopt, where it has been fully performed on the part of the child, although it was invalid under the laws where it was made.” 6 As to plaintiffs’ fourth proposition of law, we said, , : “ ‘The question of whether evidence is sufficient to be clear and convincing is primarily for the trial court; his findin
  • In Re Lamfrom's Estate 368 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1962
    [6] As to plaintiffs' fourth proposition of law, we said, , : "`The question of whether evidence is sufficient to be clear and convincing is primarily for the trial court; his finding should not be disturbed unless we must say as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.'
  • Buzard v. Griffin 358 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
  • Buzard v. Griffin 358 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
  • Joseph v. Tibsherany 354 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1960
  • Joseph v. Tibsherany 354 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1960
    the court held that when a confidential relationship is shown to exist between two parties, even though no active fraud by the grantee in procuring of a- conveyance be shown, the *211 mere existence of such confidential relationship, when coupled with the promises to reconvey, created a constructive t
  • Fernandez v. Garza 354 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1960
  • Fernandez v. Garza 354 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1960
    A. Yes.” Other evidence supports such a finding: It has been said repeatedly by this court, “ ‘ * * * Our duty, on appeal, begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence upon which an unprejudiced mind might reasonably have reached the same conclusion which was reached.’ ” , ; , .
  • Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
  • Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
  • Goodman v. Carson 325 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1958
  • Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
  • Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
    There is no question that if applicable the court’s discretionary power was properly exercised, , 138 P. 544 ; , .