Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Parsons, 293 P.2d 430.

34 citing documents.

Diazteca v. Palenque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Diazteca v. Palenque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
("Belated objections which might have been met if timely made during the trial may not be raised for the first time in a motion for new trial.").
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Parsons, 80 Ariz. *243 88, 98
Englehart v. Jeep Corp. 594 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1979
Englehart v. Jeep Corp. 594 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1979
P.2d 1084 (1976); , Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 23.
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hurvitz v. Coburn 572 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Hurvitz v. Coburn 572 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
The hearing officer must determine the qualifications of all expert witnesses, , and Dr. Fisher was determined to be a vocational rehabilitation expert.
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Braun v. Moreno, 11 Ariz.App.
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, supra.
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
However, since the case must be tried again, we should observe (1) when properly offered, expert testimony would be admissible, , (2) Rule 43(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, does not permit examination of a truck driver with no managerial responsibilities, as an adverse or hostile witness
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Parr 391 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1964
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Parr 391 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1964
ARIZONA COM'N OF AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE v. Jones 370 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1962
ARIZONA COM'N OF AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE v. Jones 370 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1962
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. 353 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1960
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. 353 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1960
City of Phoenix v. Brown 352 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1960
City of Phoenix v. Brown 352 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1960
I haven’t done any street work, but I have filled holes and the other.” , , this Court said: “ * * * it is well-settled law in this jurisdiction that the question of whether an expert witness is competent is a matter that rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.