Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Brown, 352 P.2d 754.

55 citing documents.

Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC 307 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC 307 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(explaining that the lack of the highest degree of skill or qualification of an expert witness goes to the weight of his testimony rather than to its admissibility).
Wal-Mart v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Wal-Mart v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Furthermore, it is not required that the witness “have the best possible qualifications, nor the highest degree of skill or knowledge,” so long as he does have “skill and knowledge superior to that of men in general.” M. Udall, et al., Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 22, at 31-32 (3d ed. 1991)
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Cooley v. Arizona Public Service Co. 839 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 23.”
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
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Smith v. Chapman 565 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Smith v. Chapman 565 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
And in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict, the following principles, , are applicable: ‘ , , this Court announced the rule that the trial judge is authorized to direct a verdict in favor of one party only where no evidence has been introduced which would justify a reasonable man in returning a v
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
Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 23.
Kelman v. Bohi 550 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Kelman v. Bohi 550 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fruth v. Divito 546 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fruth v. Divito 546 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
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
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
*571 , ; Udall, Arizona Lazo of Evidence, § 23.
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
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
Pinewood Development Company v. Truman 514 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Pinewood Development Company v. Truman 514 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sweet v. Ybarra, 13 Ariz.App.
Kington v. Camden 507 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Kington v. Camden 507 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
They were minding their own business in their own lane and under the totalitar-ianness [sic] of this situation, the Court feels that the issue of negligence should not be submitted to the jury.” The principles to be followed by the trial court in passing upon a , wherein the court states: “ , , this Court announced the rule that the trial judge is authorized to direct a verdict in favor of one party only where no evidence has been introduced which would justify a reasonable man in retu
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Phoenix w. Brown
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
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
And in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict, the following principles, , are applicable: “ , , this Court announced the rule that the trial judge is authorized to direct a verdict in favor of one party only where no evidence-has been introduced which would justify a reasonable man in returning a v
Herman v. Vigil 464 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Herman v. Vigil 464 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Espinosa 421 P.2d 322 Ariz. 1966
State v. Espinosa 421 P.2d 322 Ariz. 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, supra.
Harris v. Campbell 409 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Harris v. Campbell 409 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Vegodsky v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965