Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crouch v. Truman, 328 P.2d 614.

27 citing documents.

State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(finding that a party who had a full and complete opportunity to develop its case, but did not do so, was not entitled to a new trial to permit it to do what it should have done earlier); Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App.
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Our Supreme Court has stated that a new trial is not required “[w]hen a party has full and complete opportunity to develop its case but does not do so____” , United Producers & Consumers Coop.
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App.
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 664 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1983
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 664 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1983
in support of its position.
State v. Esquer 550 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Esquer 550 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Crosby v. Smith, 13 Ariz.App.
State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
explaining the pertinent aspect of Crouch v. Pixler, supra; see also Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App.
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co. 454 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co. 454 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation v. Harborlite Corporation, 4 Ariz.App.
United Producers & Consumers Cooperative, Inc. v. O'Malley 436 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1968
United Producers & Consumers Cooperative, Inc. v. O'Malley 436 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1968
City of Glendale v. Skok 432 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
City of Glendale v. Skok 432 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
By dictum, , our Supreme-Court said: “Whether a reversal without direction-necessitates a new trial depends on the-intention of the appellate court and gen- • erally if such reversal is for an error-committed during the trial, it will be-interpreted as requiring new trial * 84 Ariz. at 362 , 328 P.2d at 615
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
Day v. Estate of Wiswall 381 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1963
Day v. Estate of Wiswall 381 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1963