Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jost v. Ross, 311 P.2d 840.

31 citing documents.

Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Teresa F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Teresa F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2007) (holding objections raised for the first time on appeal are waived) ( ).
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lay v. City of Mesa 815 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lay v. City of Mesa 815 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Instructions must be considered as a whole, and a case will not be reversed when an error appears in an isolated part of the instructions, “unless it appears that the questioned instruction, when considered in connection with all the instructions in the case, was calculated to mislead the jury as to the law.” , ( , ).
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
The test is whether the jury would be misled as to the proper rule of law, , ” (Emphasis added.)
Shore Line Properties, Inc. v. Deer-O-Paints & Chemicals, Ltd. 538 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Shore Line Properties, Inc. v. Deer-O-Paints & Chemicals, Ltd. 538 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Zakroff v. May 443 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Zakroff v. May 443 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Brecheisen v. Paris 436 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1968
Brecheisen v. Paris 436 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1968
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co., 2 Ariz.App.
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
City of Phoenix v. Harlan, supra; , .
Verdugo v. Po Shing Gee 417 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Verdugo v. Po Shing Gee 417 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
we stated: “ * * * However, it has been the rule of long standing in this jurisdiction that “ ‘ * * * instructions must be considered as a whole, and that a case will not be reversed when the alleged error is predicated on an isolated part of the instructions, unless it appears that the questioned ins
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Minton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 367 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1961
Minton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 367 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1961
Skousen v. Nidy 367 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1961
Skousen v. Nidy 367 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1961
City of Yuma v. Evans 336 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1959
City of Yuma v. Evans 336 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1959
Goodman v. Carson 325 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1958