Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Musgrave v. Githens, 294 P.2d 674.

43 citing documents.

White v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
White v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
And we have long held that Rule 51 requires that the objection be made at trial, at the time the instructions are being settled.2
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
See Newton, 96 Ariz. at 320; –93 (1956)
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
nds there was no error because “[t]he ‘shared purpose’ was not required under this jury instruction; it was an alternative basis for the intent requirement.” In Musgrave, the court examined a jury instruction providing, “if you find that this negligence was a proximate or concurrent cause of the accident and plaintiff’s injuries, then your verdict must be for the defendants.” (emphasis added).
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
We have often stated that instructions must be considered as a whole, P.2d 674 (1956), and that if an instruction is incomplete, it is not reversible error if the proper qualifications are given in some other portion of the instructions, Humphrey v. Atchison, T. &.
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
Although there is a question whether or not the defendant specifically raised this objection at the time, , , Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., we nevertheless do not find the instruction a comment on the evidence even if it had been timely raised.
Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Zane, 160 F.2d 731 (CCAAriz., 1947)
State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
Paul v. Holcomb 442 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Paul v. Holcomb 442 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
Newton v. Main, supra; , ; , .
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
We further stated, , : “ * * * We have often stated that instructions must be considered as a whole, , and that if an instruction is incomplete, it is not reversible error if the proper qualifications are given in some other portion of the instructions, Humphrey v. Atchison, T. & S.F.
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corporation 411 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corporation 411 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Newton v. Main 395 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1964
Newton v. Main 395 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1964
Tuscon Title Insurance Company v. D'Ascoli 383 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1963
Tuscon Title Insurance Company v. D'Ascoli 383 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1963
Musgrave v. Githens; , .
Ieronimo v. Hagerman 380 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1963
Ieronimo v. Hagerman 380 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1963
Curlee v. Steward 379 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1963
Curlee v. Steward 379 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1963
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
Viewing the instructions as a whole, , , we *242 think the general instructions given covered those points listed above upon which the plaintiff was entitled to instructions, and correctly stated the law.
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957