Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wolfswinkel v. Southern Pacific Company, 307 P.2d 1040.

28 citing documents.

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
See also Layton v. Rocha, supra; , , aff'd on reh’g
Silvestri v. Hurlburt 547 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Silvestri v. Hurlburt 547 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Wolfswinkel v. Southern Pacific Com *369 pany, , on rehearing
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
We believe the requested instruction would be a , , , adhered to
Riley v. Jones 430 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Riley v. Jones 430 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
The plaintiff contends that the giving of this instruction violated Article 18, Section 5, of the Arizona Constitution, A. R.S., 1 , on rehearing , and that the giving thereof was such “fundamental error” that it can be raised without having objected to same at the time of settling instructions
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Schmidt v. Gibbons 412 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Schmidt v. Gibbons 412 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
amplified, , P.2d 1040 (1957); for the latter
Trickel v. Rainbo Baking Company of Phoenix 412 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1966
Trickel v. Rainbo Baking Company of Phoenix 412 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1966
Trojanovich v. Marshall 388 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
Trojanovich v. Marshall 388 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
affirmed on rehearing , we held that the court may not instruct the jury that if it finds certain facts in issue to be true, it must find the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence.
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Plaintiffs next contended that defendant Marsh’s instructions Nos. 4, 5, 10, 25, and one of the court’s , 305 P, *168 2d 477; Opinion on Rehearing, , , regarding the constitutional prohibition on contributory negligence as that prohibition bears on jury instruction.
Terzis v. Miles 366 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1961
Terzis v. Miles 366 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1961
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
“This instruction was in form mandatory.