Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nieman v. Jacobs, 347 P.2d 702.

26 citing documents.

Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. and Bertha Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Institute Levi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. and Bertha Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Institute Levi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(affirming judgment against plaintiffs who had neither established right to invoke res ipsa nor made out prima facie negligence case); cf. Chiara v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., 3 During oral argument, the Sanchezes conceded that they had yet to conduct depositions of ei
Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc. 42 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc. 42 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 12 , and Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 18 Ariz.App.
Nelson v. Nelson 669 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Nelson v. Nelson 669 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Johnson v. Harris 530 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Johnson v. Harris 530 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Accord, , ; Jasper v. City and County of Denver, 144 Colo.
Falcher v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 506 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Falcher v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 506 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Silverson v. Weber, 57 Cal.2d 834 , 22 Cal.Rptr.
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Phen v. All American Bus Lines, Inc.
Avechuco v. Awtrey 470 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1970
Avechuco v. Awtrey 470 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1970
Casey v. Beaudry Motor Co., supra; , .
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
Evaluating the evidence most favorably to support the conclusion of a joint enterprise, , the facts are as follows.
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
213 P. 1002 ; , 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
McCarthy v. Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation 411 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
McCarthy v. Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation 411 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
e applicability of the doctrine is limited to those cases wherein the following elements are revealed by the evidence: “ * * * the thing which causes the injury must be under the exclusive control of the defendant; the injured person must be without fault; and the injury must be such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if one having such control uses proper care.” , The doctrine has been held to he inapplicable to situations involving multiple instrumentalities.
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The strongest inference that can be drawn in plaintiff’s favor they say, is that the elevator did not function with absolute perfection, , in support of that position.
Spain v. Kelland 379 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
Spain v. Kelland 379 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963