Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Estate of Schade, 351 P.2d 173.

38 citing documents.

Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Mohave 7 Farms, In re Schade’s Estate
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Explained Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., -16 , -04 (1975)
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is “a renewal of [a] motion for an instructed verdict, and is designed to permit the trial court, after more mature deliberation, to reverse its ruling in denying the motion for an instructed verdict.” In re Schade’s Estate
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See, e.g., In re *485 Estate of Shade
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Matter of Estate of Travers 589 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
In Matter of Estate of Travers 589 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
16- 18 A.L.R.2d 190 ); and see In re Schade’s Estate
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
A. No, sir.” Appellant contends this testimony was inadmissible because it consisted of negative testimony, , In re Schade’s Estate, , , 274 P. 779 (1929); , , Dalton’s Estate v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., 350 Mich.
In Re Estate of Frick 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fahringer v. Pierce 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In Re Estate of Frick 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50(b)
Fahringer v. Pierce 475 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50 (b); In Re Schade’s Estate
Miracle Mile Bottling Distributing Co. v. Drake 471 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Miracle Mile Bottling Distributing Co. v. Drake 471 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In re Schade’s Estate, , .
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fish v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Co., , , , In re Schade’s Estate, , , , , Ft.
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Van Emden v. Becker 431 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Van Emden v. Becker 431 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Mohave Farms, , In re Schade’s Estate
Shell Oil Company v. Collar 407 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1965
Shell Oil Company v. Collar 407 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1965
case of In re Schade’s Estate, , , we said: “ * * * The rule in this jurisdiction as to negative evidence is too well settled to permit of quibbling.
Ft. Mohave Farms, Inc. v. Dunlap 393 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1964
Ft. Mohave Farms, Inc. v. Dunlap 393 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1964
And we stated in Schade’s Estate, , that where testimony of an interested witness is corroborated by a disinterested witness, rejection of that evidence amounts to arbitrary action.