Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Joseph v. Tibsherany, 354 P.2d 254.

36 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
G. Bogert & G. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees, See.
Amfac Electric Supply Co. v. Rainer Construction Co. 600 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1979
Amfac Electric Supply Co. v. Rainer Construction Co. 600 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1979
Appellant’s , over *415 looks the fact that Rule 41(b) at the time that case was decided contained a phrase which is now conspicuous by its absence: If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court shall, without prior request, make findings as
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lehman v. Whitehead, 1 Ariz.App.
Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc. 450 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc. 450 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
The trial court, as the trier of fact in the proceeding from which this appeal was taken, was entitled to pass on the credibility of the witnesses and conflicts in the evidence, Joseph v. Tibsherany, 88 Ariz. *169 205 , and we are of the opinion that the evidence supports the findings of fact and judgment of the trial court, Judgment affirmed.
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Carrel v. Lux 420 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Carrel v. Lux 420 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 410 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1966
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 410 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1966
In Re Sullenger's Estate 408 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sullenger v. Valley National Bank 408 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Sullenger's Estate 408 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sullenger v. Valley National Bank 408 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Han v. Horwitz 407 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Han v. Horwitz 407 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Lehman v. Whitehead 403 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Lehman v. Whitehead 403 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Kazal v. Kazal 402 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1965
Kazal v. Kazal 402 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1965
However, , we said that the Chadwick case, supra, was no longer applicable because it had been decided prior to the amendment of Rule 41(b) in 1955.
Robledo v. Kopp 401 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Robledo v. Kopp 401 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Davis v. Weber 380 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1963
Davis v. Weber 380 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1963
Mutz v. Lucero 365 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1961
Mutz v. Lucero 365 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1961