DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Connor, 347 P.2d 568.

33 citing documents.

  • Stoltz v. Maloney 630 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Stoltz v. Maloney 630 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Harmon v. Harmon 613 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Harmon v. Harmon 613 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Matter of Weiner 586 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1978
  • Matter of Weiner 586 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1978
    In fact, McCormick on Evidence (2d ed.) § 340(b) at 796 urges that the best definition would be reached if the finder of fact “be persuaded that the truth of the contention is ‘highly probable.’ ” , the court indicated that most of the issues of fact in the case were disputed by the parties; however, this did not deter the court from finding that the evidence of a trust was clear and convincing.
  • O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
  • O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
  • Stewart v. Woodruff 505 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Stewart v. Woodruff 505 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    3 Bogert Trusts and Trustees, 2nd Edition, § 472.
  • Quila v. Estate of Schafer 438 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Quila v. Estate of Schafer 438 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
  • King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
    at 21 , ; Trusts & Trustees, Bogert, 2d Ed., § 472, p. 11.
  • Moore v. Holbrook 433 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Moore v. Holbrook 433 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    And the burden is on the one alleging the trust: “Unquestionably, a person who wishes to impose a trust on a transaction which on its face appears to be a valid transfer must convince the trier of fact of the trust by clear and convincing proof.”
  • Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Laurence 429 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Laurence 429 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    This court will view the evidence and the lawful inferences to he drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the findings of the *572 trial judge
  • Almada v. Ruelas 393 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1964
  • Almada v. Ruelas 393 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1964
    This court will view the evidence and the lawful inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the findings of the trial judge
  • Smith v. Rabb 386 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1963
  • Smith v. Rabb 386 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1963
  • Washington National Insurance v. Dale Benz, Inc. 382 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1963
  • Washington National Insurance v. Dale Benz, Inc. 382 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1963
    Review of evidence by this court to determine whether it meets the standard “clear and convincing” is limited to testing the inherent reasonableness of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the findings of the trial court
  • Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
  • Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
    The equity of the transaction must shape the measure of relief.” 2 , , 570 and 576 (1959): “Unquestionably, a person who wishes to impose a trust on a transaction which on its face appears to be a valid transfer must convince the trier of fact of the trust by clear and convincing proof.
  • Joseph v. Tibsherany 354 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1960
  • Fernandez v. Garza 354 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1960
  • Fernandez v. Garza 354 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1960
    A. Yes.” Other evidence supports such a finding: It has been said repeatedly by this court, “ ‘ * * * Our duty, on appeal, begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence upon which an unprejudiced mind might reasonably have reached the same conclusion which was reached.’ ” , ; , .