DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fritts v. Ericson, 349 P.2d 1107.

30 citing documents.

  • Andrea F., Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Andrea F., Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Generally, “when a 4 LYNCH v. BRAKEBILL Decision of the Court timely request for findings is submitted, the trial court must make findings concerning all of the ultimate facts.” ( ).
  • Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    See, , (“[W]e feel that if an intelligent disposition is to be made and justice done the judgment must be reversed and the case sent back to the trial court for more specific findings, these to be based upon the evidence already adduced — or the taking of such additional testimony as may be
  • Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    They point out that the Flemings made no use of this land, , appeal on re *86 mand, , as requiring the claimant to show adverse possession of the “very land in question.” We agree.
  • Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Miller v. McAlister 728 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Miller v. McAlister 728 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    and outline directions for the court on remand, reminding the trial court that it is free to formulate its findings and conclusions on the basis of the existing record and transcripts, or it may conduct further hearings or direct counsel to submit proposed findings and conclusions with accompan
  • Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Sato v. First National Bank of Arizona 469 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Sato v. First National Bank of Arizona 469 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Defendants next contend that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning their affirmative defenses and counterclaim and therefore argue that a
  • Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
  • Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
    The burden of proof is upon the person claiming title by adverse possession to show that the requisite elements thereof have been satisfied, and there are no equities favoring the establishment of his claim
  • Fritts v. Ericson 436 P.2d 582 Ariz. 1968
  • Fritts v. Ericson 436 P.2d 582 Ariz. 1968
    Did the 1948 lease from plaintiff’s predecessor in interest to defendant Ericson covering the lands now in question, which ran for the period June 5, 1948 to June 5, 1949, occur during the ten-year period of defendant’s claimed adverse possession, or was it subsequent thereto ?”
  • Shetter v. Rochelle 411 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Shetter v. Rochelle 411 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    This is a case of “no evidence” 2 as opposed to a , in which the evidence was inconclusive and proper findings of fact were not made by the trial court.
  • Busby v. State ex rel. Herman 409 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Busby v. State ex rel. Herman 409 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Hunsaker v. Smith 399 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Hunsaker v. Smith 399 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Williams v. Greene 390 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1964
  • Williams v. Greene 390 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1964