Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bean v. Gorby, 292 P.2d 199.

32 citing documents.

Lundquist v. Seales 657 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Lundquist v. Seales 657 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Flieger v. Reeb 583 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Flieger v. Reeb 583 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The instructions do not appear to express the judge’s
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
stands for the proposition that lengthy, repetitious, and argumentative instructions may constitute error if they seem to express to the jury the judge’s personal view.
State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Criticized Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
our Arizona Supreme Court criticizes repetitive instructions.
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
for a discussion of the general principles applicable to this subject.
Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
which states: “ ‘No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.’ “
Krek v. Briel 412 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Krek v. Briel 412 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
[Citing cases]" , and in Young Candy &amp
Kostolansky v. Lesher 387 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1963
Kostolansky v. Lesher 387 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1963
which states: “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
While undue emphasis on returning a verdict for one party is objectionable, , it does not appear that plaintiff objected to such emphasis when the instructions were read.
Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Romero v. Cooper 325 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1958
Romero v. Cooper 325 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1958
Musgrave v. Githens 294 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1956
Musgrave v. Githens 294 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1956