Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Koerber, 313 P.2d 411.

67 citing documents.

Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
She cancelled it.” ¶22 “Waiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right.” see also Mohave Cnty.
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(holding city not liable for flood-related damages where it could not reasonably anticipate increased volume of water discharged by third persons when constructing a culvert).
Morganteen v. Cowboy Adventures, Inc. 949 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Morganteen v. Cowboy Adventures, Inc. 949 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
at 385, 694 P.2d at 215 ( , ).
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc. 877 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc. 877 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“Waiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right ...”
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
A waiver will be given effect when it represents “an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” , D. Dobbs, supra, § 2.3 at 43.
Davis v. Tucson Arizona Boys Choir Society 669 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Davis v. Tucson Arizona Boys Choir Society 669 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
The evidence which might establish waiver by conduct, i.e., the relinquishment of a known right, , was in conflict.
Croaff v. Evans 636 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Croaff v. Evans 636 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
American Continental Life Insurance v. Ranier Construction Co. 607 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1980
American Continental Life Insurance v. Ranier Construction Co. 607 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1980
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Tryon v. Naegle, supra; Whitly v. Moore, 5 Ariz.App.
Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co. 547 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co. 547 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McMorran Milling Co. v. Pere Marquette Ry.
Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper 538 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1975
Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper 538 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1975
The purpose of this rule is to fully advise the trial court of the basis of a litigant’s position so that it may not be led into involuntary error
State v. Natividad 526 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1974
State v. Natividad 526 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1974
A defendant who passively observes in a state of complete incomprehension the complex wheels of justice grind on before him can hardly be said to have satisfied the classic definition of a waiver as “the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.” , Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct.
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Albert v. Joralemon, 271 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1959); , ; Home Owners’
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Cocke v. Cocke 474 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cocke v. Cocke 474 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Sanderson 449 P.2d 616 Ariz. 1969
City of Tucson v. Sanderson 449 P.2d 616 Ariz. 1969
in which we said: “Inherent in the view herein expressed are certain obvious limitations to the city’s liability.
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co.
McFadden v. Wilder 429 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
McFadden v. Wilder 429 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Morgan v. Hays 426 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1967
Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
Diedrich v. Farnsworth 413 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by