Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

Diedrich v. Farnsworth 413 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
re stream waters or, at least, that the law pertaining to stream waters was applicable: , 196 P. 1024 (1921); City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , Maricopa County Municipal Water C. D. No. 1 v. Warford, , , 262 P.2d *272 252 (1953); , and Gillespie Land &amp
McCarthy v. Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation 411 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
McCarthy v. Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation 411 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley 407 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley 407 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Murphey v. Valenzuela 386 P.2d 78 Ariz. 1963
Murphey v. Valenzuela 386 P.2d 78 Ariz. 1963
Schering Corporation v. Cotlow 385 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1963
Schering Corporation v. Cotlow 385 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1963
which .involved the construction of “managing agent” as used in Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 43(g).
Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company v. Gonzalez 379 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1963
Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company v. Gonzalez 379 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1963
In a , , we considered the liabilities of *161 the City of Tucson resulting from the construction of a culvert in a natural arroyo.
Mason v. Hasso 367 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1961
Mason v. Hasso 367 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1961
While to create an abandonment there must necessarily be an intention to abandon, yet such an intention is not an essential element of forfeiture in that there can be a forfeiture against and contrary to the intention of the party alleged to have forfeited.” , , we stated: “ * * * Abandonment involves an intention to abandon, together with an act or an omission to act by which such intention is apparently carried into effect, * * *130 It is axiomatic that the law abhors a forefeiture, and since
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Woolridge 354 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1960
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Woolridge 354 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1960
the purpose of Rule 51(a) “is to require counsel to fully inform the trial court of the basis for a litigant’s position so that the court •may not be led into involuntary error.” Further, because plaintiff may have led the trial court into giving the above erroneous instruction, it ill behoo
McNeil v. Attaway 348 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1960
McNeil v. Attaway 348 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1960