Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mayo v. Ephrom, 325 P.2d 814.

47 citing documents.

Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-74, (citations omitted).
Speer v. Donfeld 969 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Speer v. Donfeld 969 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(introduction of evidence with no bearing on trial issues intended only to prejudice jury was grounds for reversal); , (new trial proper when statements to jury not supported by facts and resulted in prejudice); , (new trial proper when counsel made numerous inappropriate comments to jury).
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Suciu v. AMFAC Distributing Corp. 675 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Suciu v. AMFAC Distributing Corp. 675 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Saide v. Stanton 659 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1983
Saide v. Stanton 659 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1983
-74 , Tovrea Equipment Co. v. Gobby, supra.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
Blakely Oil, , ; Bradley [Produce] v. Philhower, , ; , 282 * , .” 88 Ariz. at page 247, 354 P.2d at page 864 .
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband 426 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband 426 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
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
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Miller v. Boeger 405 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Miller v. Boeger 405 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
though he might have ascertained the falsity of the representation had he made an investigation.” , it was held that a party suing in fraud was not entitled to a verdict “ * * * if by an ordinary degree of caution the party complaining ■could have ascertained the falsity of the representations complained of.” , seems to back away from this' to some extent when it says: “Where, however, a representee makes only a partial investigation and relies in part upon the representations of the adverse par
Bass v. Renaud 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Thompson's Estate 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Thompson's Estate 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bass v. Renaud 398 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Bogard 354 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1960
State v. Bogard 354 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1960
Blakely Oil, , ; , ; , ; , .
Pima County v. Bilby 351 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1960
Pima County v. Bilby 351 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1960
We will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.” See also, e. g.: , ; Blakely Oil, Inc. v. Wells Truckways, Ltd., , ; , ; , .
Zugsmith v. Mullins 344 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1959
Zugsmith v. Mullins 344 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1959
Sult v. Bolenbach 327 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1958
Sult v. Bolenbach 327 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1958
The representations as to the capacity of the wells and the quantity of water available were material and fraudulent, , , and the proof thereof clear and convincing.