Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McDonald, 352 P.2d 343.

66 citing documents.

Yanez v. Kundavaram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Yanez v. Kundavaram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Schritter, 201 Ariz. at 392, ¶ 7 ().
ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(quoting City of Chicago v. Harrison-Halsted Bldg.
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., -94, ¶ 14 , -42 (2001) (declining to manipulate the statute to include *297 the expenses a party incurs in deposing its own expert witness); , (concluding that the cost statute made no provision for allowing the recovery of expert witness fees); Ponderosa Plaza, 181 Ariz. at 134 , 888 P.2d at 1321 (holding that travel expenses for out-of-state witnesses to attend trial were not costs); Fowler, 124 Ariz. at 114 , 602 P.2d at 495
Schritter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 36 P.3d 739 Ariz. 2001
Schritter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 36 P.3d 739 Ariz. 2001
1 , we expressly held that “the word ‘cost’ has been limited in its meaning by A.R.S.
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Bach 973 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1999
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Bach 973 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1999
(noting that “the word ‘cost’ has been limited in its meaning by A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. Mori 898 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
City of Phoenix v. Mori 898 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Later decisions are persuasive only insofar as they conform to our understanding of “justice and public policy.”
City of Phoenix v. Clauss 869 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Clauss 869 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The City argued that unless the witnesses were able either to demonstrate that the sales had closed escrow or give some background information explaining why they had not
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(accountant permitted to testify as to value in condemnation action).
Dewey v. Arnold 764 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dewey v. Arnold 764 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Our supreme court has held that evidence of sales to a purchaser having the power of condemnation are admissible in condemnation proceedings only if a proper foundation has been laid, that is, that “the sale was voluntary, that the owner was willing to sell but not compelled to do so, that the buyer was willing to buy but under no necessity of buying the property.”
Johnston v. University Hospital 719 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Johnston v. University Hospital 719 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
as authority for their position.
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Hing 709 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Hing 709 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mastick, 118 Ariz. at 373 , 576 P.2d at 1373 .
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
State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
Olson v. State 467 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Olson v. State 467 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
(1960; Feuerborn v. State of Washington, 59 Wash.2d 142 , ; People ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
Williams v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 252 N.C.
England v. Ally Ong Hing 459 P.2d 498 Ariz. 1969
England v. Ally Ong Hing 459 P.2d 498 Ariz. 1969
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Tucson Title Insurance 420 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Tucson Title Insurance 420 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1966
Williams v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 252 N.C.
Busby v. State Ex Rel. Herman 420 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1966
Busby v. State Ex Rel. Herman 420 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1966
Bolon v. Pennington 415 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bolon v. Pennington 415 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
” 94 Ariz. at 329, 385 P.2d at 210 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by