Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Michie v. Calhoun, 336 P.2d 370.

39 citing documents.

Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Salt River Project Agric.
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
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hubbard v. Matlock 540 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Hubbard v. Matlock 540 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Huebner v. Deuchle 501 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Huebner v. Deuchle 501 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Sanner Contracting Co. 492 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Sanner Contracting Co. 492 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Sayre 492 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1972
State v. Sayre 492 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1972
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc. 453 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc. 453 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Brookshire 452 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brookshire 452 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1969
we held: “ * * * The reason for the rule ‘is to give the trial judge the benefit of counsel’s best urging so that the judge may construct his charge advisedly, a purpose which, if accomplished, contributes to the efficient administration of justice by reducing the occasions for retrials.’ , .” Judgment affirmed.
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
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
Milam v. Milam 419 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1966
Milam v. Milam 419 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1966
The reason for the rule “is to give the trial judge the benefit of counsel’s best urging so that the judge may construct his charge advisedly, a purpose which, if accomplished, contributes to the efficient administration of justice by reducing the occasions for retrials.” , .
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
However, , , we quoted with approval from Alabam Freight Lines, and said: *268 “Our rejection of the [range of vision] rule was made explicit in Butane Corporation v. Kirby * * * We take this occasion again to affirm our adherence to the rule that each case requires its own answer in terms of what ‘an ordinary pru
Trojanovich v. Marshall 388 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
Trojanovich v. Marshall 388 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter 376 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1962
Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter 376 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1962
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
ion as required by Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., which provides as follows : “ * * * No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection * * , , wherein the fundamental nature of the purported error in the questioned instruction was sufficient to invoke the discretionary powers inherent in this
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co. 370 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1962
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co. 370 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1962
2 , wherein we said: “Here, the record of objections made plainly is not a commendable one in the light of Rule 51(a).
Nieman v. Jacobs 347 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1959