Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Yuma v. Evans, 336 P.2d 135.

42 citing documents.

DAVIS v. PRESCOTT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
DAVIS v. PRESCOTT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(referring to “governmental immunity” as a “defense[]” that “must be specially pleaded in order to be available”).
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991); , (The defense of governmental immunity “must be specially pleaded ...
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 927 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 927 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-40 (1959) (because grounds urged on appeal for impropriety of question asked at trial were not grounds upon which appellant based his objection to the court below, appellant could not seek a reversal.)
Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 629 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 629 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Taylor v. Quebedeaux 617 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1980
Taylor v. Quebedeaux 617 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1980
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Herzberg v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 513 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Herzberg v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 513 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
Schecter *453 v. Killingsworth, , ; , .
SCOTTSDALE DISCOUNT CORPORATION v. Dodson 417 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
SCOTTSDALE DISCOUNT CORPORATION v. Dodson 417 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Husky v. Oaks 412 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Husky v. Oaks 412 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Meyer v. Ricklick 409 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
Meyer v. Ricklick 409 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
Shell Oil Company v. Collar 407 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1965
Shell Oil Company v. Collar 407 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1965
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
336 P.2d *560 135 (1959).
Cummings v. Prater 386 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1963
Cummings v. Prater 386 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1963
1 , , we said: *24 “It is the general rale that a landlord may not be charged with responsibility for a defective condition unless he had actual knowledge of the condition, or that it has existed for such a period of time as to justify the conclusion that, in the exercise of ordinary care, he shou
England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
: Defendant next assigns as error that portion of the judgment- which concerns the life insurance policy and decrees: “ * * ' * that plaintiff is the owner of said insurance policy and all rights thereunder, and that defendant has no right or interest in same.” The instrument by which the policy w
McGuire v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 381 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1963
McGuire v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 381 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1963
295 , 25 A.2d 538 (1942), or that it has been in existence for a sufficient length of time prior to the injury for the landlord, in the exercise of reasonable care, to find and correct it
Schecter v. Killingsworth 380 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1963
Schecter v. Killingsworth 380 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1963
It is, of course, true that ordinarily this Court will not consider matters not raised in the lower court
City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer 346 P.2d 140 Ariz. 1959
City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer 346 P.2d 140 Ariz. 1959

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by