Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY, ETC. v. Cannon, 342 P.2d 207.

69 citing documents.

Larrea v. Chand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Larrea v. Chand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(describing principle); United States v. Martinez, 536 F.2d 1107, 1108 (5th Cir. 1976) (describing the 1975 promulgation of federal evidence rules); compare Ariz. R. Evid.
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
& (affirming the trial court’s decision to permit testimony by a lay person in a condemnation case); see also Maricopa Cnty.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin 851 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin 851 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
that an owner of property is always competent to testify as to the value of his property.
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jowdy v. Guerin, 10 Ariz.App.
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978)
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Englehart v. Jeep Corp. 594 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1979
Englehart v. Jeep Corp. 594 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1979
State v. Macumber, supra
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Smith v. John C. Lincoln Hospital 578 P.2d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Smith v. John C. Lincoln Hospital 578 P.2d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Mastick v. State 576 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Mastick v. State 576 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Lajeunesse 555 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Lajeunesse 555 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Board of Regents v. Cannon [ , ].
W. R. Skousen Contractor, Inc. v. Gray 546 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
W. R. Skousen Contractor, Inc. v. Gray 546 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Board of Regents of University
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
Lowery v. Turner 506 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lowery v. Turner 506 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
M. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, §§ 21-27 (1960).
City of Tucson v. Rickles 505 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1973
City of Tucson v. Rickles 505 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1973
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Town & Country Chrysler Plymouth v. Porter, 11 Ariz.App.
Robles v. City of Tucson 491 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Robles v. City of Tucson 491 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
The Court: He’s admitted that.” Appellant relies on Board of Regents of University, , for the following proposition: “If the witness testifying as to market value bases his opinion upon a recognized method of determining it which is of such a nature that it is not a matter of common knowledge, but results from special experience or training of the witness, his opinion i
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Town & Country Chrysler Plymouth v. Porter, 11 Ariz.App.
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Our Supreme Court, in Board of Regents of University, , discussed the qualifications and admissibility of the testimony of an expert witness as follows: “He is defined as a person who is so qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, as to enable him to form a definite opinion of his own respecting any division of science, branch of ar
American Savings Life Insurance v. State ex rel. Herman 476 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
American Savings Life Insurance v. State ex rel. Herman 476 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
: “The opinion of a witness permitted to testify as an expert is not substantial evidence unless the witness can give a satisfactory explanation of how he arrived at his opinion.
Jowdy v. Guerin 457 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Jowdy v. Guerin 457 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Board of Regents of University, , Schatt-Ajax Industries v. Churchill, 3 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by