Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Woolridge, 354 P.2d 34.

29 citing documents.

Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
Co., 157 Ariz. -8- 411, 419, ("[T]he court may instruct the jury hypothetically, telling them what facts will constitute probable cause.") (citations omitted); Sarwark Motor Sales, -78, -37 (1960) (setting forth two methods of instructing the jury).3 ¶15 The probable cause evidence in the present case was disputed.
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
Co., , ("the court may instruct the jury hypothetically, telling them what facts will constitute probable cause.”); Sarwark Motor Sales, -78 , -37 (1960) (setting forth two methods of instructing the jury); see also W. Page Keeton et al, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 119, at 882 (5th ed. 1984) (judge can either require special verdict or instruct on what facts, if found, would constitute probable cause).
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Deadman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 743 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Deadman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 743 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Sarwark Motor Sales, , Prosser & Keaton, § 11 at 52; 32 Am.
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sarwark Motor Sales, , , , cert.
Hockett v. City of Tucson 678 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hockett v. City of Tucson 678 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Carroll v. Kalar 545 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1976
Carroll v. Kalar 545 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1976
Slade v. City of Phoenix 541 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1975
Slade v. City of Phoenix 541 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1975
McClinton v. Rice, supra; Sarwark Motor Sales
Meadows v. Grant 486 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Meadows v. Grant 486 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Of the two issues remaining, probable cause is primarily a question of law to be determined by the Court, although where a conflict of facts is involved, the factual basis may be determined by the trier of fact (Sarwark Motor Sales, , Todd v. Melcher, 11 Ariz.App.
Watzek v. Walker 485 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Watzek v. Walker 485 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Sarwark Motor Sales, , Todd v. Melcher, 11 Ariz.App.
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Charron v. Kernan 447 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Charron v. Kernan 447 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., Sarwark Motor Sales
Patania v. Silverstone 415 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Patania v. Silverstone 415 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Wisniski v. Ong 382 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1963