Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Figueroa v. Majors, 338 P.2d 803.

59 citing documents.

Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
which states the rule of law as follows: *87 It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant admits the truth of whatever competent evidence the opposing party has introduced, including all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom, and requ
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Valley National Bank v. Brown 517 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1974
Valley National Bank v. Brown 517 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1974
” at 346-347 , at 804 (1959).
Hlavaty v. Song 484 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hlavaty v. Song 484 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Reader v. General Motors Corporation 483 P.2d 1388 Ariz. 1971
Reader v. General Motors Corporation 483 P.2d 1388 Ariz. 1971
State v. Cabrera 478 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Cabrera 478 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 470 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
Tanner v. Levie 460 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1969
Tanner v. Levie 460 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1969
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Seifert v. Owen 460 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Seifert v. Owen 460 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Whitly v. Moore 427 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Whitly v. Moore 427 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In the Stearman case, supra, , : “It is further fundamental that a verdict will not be directed where the evidence on material facts is conflicting, or where on undisputed facts reasonable and fair-minded men may differ as to the inferences and conclusions to be drawn, or where different conclusions might reasonably be reached
Vigil v. Herman 424 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1967
Vigil v. Herman 424 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1967
In answering these issues we are guided by the following often-stated principles: at 346 , , at 804: “It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant admits the truth of whatever competent evidence the opposing party has introduced, including all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom, and requires that the evidence be interpre
Bullard v. Stonebraker 422 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1967
Bullard v. Stonebraker 422 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1967
Johnson v. Board of Education 419 P.2d 52 Ariz. 1966
Johnson v. Board of Education 419 P.2d 52 Ariz. 1966
Barker et ux v. General Petroleum Corporation, et al., , ; , ; , ; , 195 P. 538 , 44 A.L.R.
Brand v. J. H. Rose Trucking Co. 418 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Brand v. J. H. Rose Trucking Co. 418 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Clark v. Compania Ganadera de Cananea, S.A., supra
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Standard Oil Co. 414 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Standard Oil Co. 414 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
And as was also stated: “ * * * and thus the question of negligence and proximate cause is one of fact to be submitted to the jury and not a question of law for the court; if, upon all the facts and circumstances, there is a reasonable chance or likelihood of the conclusions of reasonable men differing, then the question is one for the jury.” at 347 , at 804 (1959).
Finn v. J. H. Rose Truck Lines 398 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Finn v. J. H. Rose Truck Lines 398 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Stearman v. Miranda 396 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1964
Stearman v. Miranda 396 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1964
-347 , , 804: “ * * * It is further fundamental that a verdict will not be directed where the evidence on material facts is conflicting, or where on undisputed facts reasonable and fair-minded men may differ as to the inferences and conclusions to be drawn, or where different conclusions might reasona
Joseph v. Tibsherany 354 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1960