Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mercer v. Vinson, 336 P.2d 854.

39 citing documents.

Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
1, and our courts have long held that “failure to make reference to a statute [in a complaint] is not fatal to a claim.” see also Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, P.3d 760 (2002) (if employee’s claim cognizable under AEPA, it should not be dismissed); (“[P]ublic statutes need not be pleaded or offered into evidence since courts will take judicial notice thereof.”).
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
1, and our courts have long held that “failure to make reference to a statute [in a complaint] is not fatal to a claim.” , see also Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, , (if employee’s claim cognizable under AEPA, it should not be dismissed); , (“[P]ublic statutes need not be pleaded or offered into evidence since courts will take judicial notice thereof.”).
Estate of Hernandez v. Flavio 930 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1997
Estate of Hernandez v. Flavio 930 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1997
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Welch & , , , , Carrillo v. El Mirage Roadhouse, Inc., , , 73
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 510 , 667 P.2d at 210 ; , , Restatement § 285 comment b, § 286; see also W. PROSSER & W. KEETON, § 36.
Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc. 729 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc. 729 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Tafoya v. Trisler, 8 Ariz.App.
Facit-Addo, Inc. v. Davis Financial Corp. 653 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Facit-Addo, Inc. v. Davis Financial Corp. 653 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Toney v. Bouthillier 631 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Toney v. Bouthillier 631 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Elkhart Investment Corp. v. Gazin 537 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Elkhart Investment Corp. v. Gazin 537 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
a provision of the gas appliance act required certain safety equipment to be installed in “tourist courts, camps, hotels and lodging houses.” The case was a wrongful death action involving death by carbon monoxide.
Ellingson v. Sloan 527 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Ellingson v. Sloan 527 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen 517 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen 517 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
relates to a tort claim against persons with an informal business association.
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
n , ; , , ; Young Candy &amp
Graybar Electric Company v. Lowe 462 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Graybar Electric Company v. Lowe 462 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
a case wherein the complaint did not allege a violation of the Gas Appliance Act, we said at p. 288, 336 P.2d at page 860 : “We think it a sufficient answer to say that public statutes need not be pleaded or offered in evidence since courts will take judicial notice thereof.
Tafoya v. Trisler 445 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Tafoya v. Trisler 445 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
It certainly was not bound by the conclusions which Rima seeks to place on the facts.” -287 , -859 (1959).
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 445 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 445 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Smith v. Goodman 430 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Smith v. Goodman 430 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
It is necessary for the plaintiff to show the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the accident and injury complained of: “But after the jury finds such a violation, the question of the proximate cause of the accident remains to be answered, , .” J. H. Welch &amp
Beaty v. Jenkins 414 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Beaty v. Jenkins 414 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
But after the jury finds such a violation the question of the proximate cause of the accident remains to be answered, , .” *377 J. H. Welch & , Here, we have no showing of any causal relationship between the failure to secure the building permit other than possibly the failure to make the footings as thick as required by the code.
J. H. Welch & Son Contracting Co. v. Gardner 392 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
J. H. Welch & Son Contracting Co. v. Gardner 392 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
But after the jury finds such a violation, the question of the proximate cause of the accident remains to be answered, , .
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959