Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Mitchell, 292 P.2d 827.

60 citing documents.

State v. Ketchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ketchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Indeed, Ketchner contends the juror evidence demonstrates that the jury rendered the first-degree murder verdict “by reason of a mistake.” ¶22 In Southern Pacific Railroad, a jury signed two verdict forms in favor of the plaintiff but entered an amount of damages only for count one, leaving the damages
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
292 P.2d, 827, 837 (1956).
US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶17 In support of her position, P.2d 827 (1956), for the proposition that, “the court has the power to put a manifestly irregular or defective verdict in such form as to make it conform to the intention of the jury, and carry their findings into effect, where the intention can be ascertained with certainty.” In Southern Pacific, after dischargi
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-63 , (citing Humphrey v. Atchison, T. & S.F.
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
the jury became confused about which count was which, and requested the bailiff get them the answer to the question.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
Terranova v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 761 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1988
Terranova v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 761 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1988
In ruling, this court clearly set forth the standard that governs the duty of a railroad with respect to grade crossings: Because of the appellee’s [the railroad’s] repeated insistence, both here and in the court below, that its sole duty is to warn travelers on the highway, it is appropriate to reiterate the statement this Court made in 1956 , : ‘It is axiomatic that a railroad company owes to travelers on the highway the affirmative duty of due care in the maintenance and safeguarding of its c
Wright v. Mayberry 762 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Wright v. Mayberry 762 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
ay, however, reform a manifestly defective verdict if the jury’s intent can be ascertained with certainty: “ ‘Generally, the court has the power to put a manifestly irregular or defective verdict in such form as to make it conform to the intention of the jury, and carry their findings into effect, where the intention can be ascertained with certainty.’ ” , (quoting 89 C.J.S.
Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Affidavits of jurors have been considered in Arizona to show an error or mistake in the judgment entered as not conforming to the findings of the jury, , improper acts or communication by third parties with a juror, State v. Pearson, supra, and failure by the juror submitting the affidavit to disclose upon inquiry on voir dire his bias and prejudice, Board of Trustees Eloy Elementary School District v. McEwen, 6 Ariz.App.
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
(refusal to give a requested instruction when the material parts of the instruction were covered by other instructions was not error); Harris v. Murch, 18 Ariz.App.
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Fuller v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 596 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fuller v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 596 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
: “Defendants unwarrantedly place great reliance upon four cases decided by this court which set forth the extent of the duty of reasonable and adequate warning which a railroad company owes a motorist once a train is actually upon and blocking the crossing.
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
*566 Because of the appellee’s repeated insistence, both here and in the court below, that its sole duty is to warn travelers on the highway, it is appropriate to reiterate the statement this Court made in 1956 , : “It is axiomatic that a railroad company owes to travelers on the highway the affirmative duty of due care in the maintenance and safeguarding of its crossings and in the operation of its trains thereon.
Wasko v. Frankel 569 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1977
Wasko v. Frankel 569 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1977
Valley National Bank of Arizona v. Haney 558 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Valley National Bank of Arizona v. Haney 558 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Johnson v. Harris, 23 Ariz.App.
Banner Realty, Inc. v. Turek 546 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1976
Banner Realty, Inc. v. Turek 546 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1976
*64 In addition to the citation of the rule, P. 203 (1924), , 207 P. 1089 (1922)
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Tucson v. Gallagher 483 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Tucson v. Gallagher 483 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Konow v. Southern Pacific Company 465 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1970
Konow v. Southern Pacific Company 465 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1970
Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
Lashinsky v. Hoffman 411 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Lashinsky v. Hoffman 411 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Humphrey v. A. T. & S. F. Ry.
Mitchell v. Colquette 379 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1963
Mitchell v. Colquette 379 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1963
Humphrey v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
The second sentence imposing a duty to “ought to know” , , where we expressly disapproved of an instruction arbitrarily making it the duty of a passenger to look and listen for approaching trains.