Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alires v. Southern Pacific Company, 378 P.2d 913.

64 citing documents.

Fuller v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 596 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fuller v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 596 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
The second half of the jerry-built instruction, , belongs with an instruction concerning the right of the railroad to assume that a motorist approaching a railroad crossing will exercise reasonable care.
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Co., 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
53 , , (Jennings, J., specially concurring).
State v. Treadaway 568 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1977
State v. Treadaway 568 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1977
Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App.
State v. Aguirre 557 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Aguirre 557 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
overruled on other grounds, , 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 611 (1967).
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Car-rizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App.
Schneider v. MacAri 533 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1975
Schneider v. MacAri 533 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1975
Wilson v. Sereno, 11 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 523 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 523 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Jefferson 516 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1973
State v. Jefferson 516 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1973
Pacht v. Morris 489 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1971
Pacht v. Morris 489 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1971
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wilson v. Sereno 461 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Wilson v. Sereno 461 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Fonda v. City of Mesa 456 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Fonda v. City of Mesa 456 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
McDowell v. Davis 448 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1968
McDowell v. Davis 448 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1968
Salt River Valley Water Users’ , ; , ; , 190 P. 88 .
Reliance Truck Co. v. Plummer 447 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Reliance Truck Co. v. Plummer 447 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Our Supreme Court has defined negligence as “ * * * the failure to act as a reasonable and prudent person would act in like circumstances.”
Bryant v. Thunderbird Academy 439 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1968
Bryant v. Thunderbird Academy 439 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1968
So, while it was defendant’s burden to establish contributory negligence, , , and while it was not sufficient to show that contributory negligence might have existed, , , 5 A.L.R.3d 27 n, lacking evidence of the size of the limb, we are compelled to presume that the jury could reasonably conclude that Bryant was negligent in placing h
Christy v. Baker 439 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Christy v. Baker 439 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In Alires v. Southern Pacific Company (1963) , , the Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury that: ‘The proximate cause of an injury is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.’
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Schmidt v. Gibbons 412 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Schmidt v. Gibbons 412 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
[the plaintiff is contributorily negligent] * * * then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict for the defendants,’ ” and “ ‘ * * if [the plaintiff is contributorily negligent] * * * then you are instructed to find in favor of the defendants,’ ” , * * there can be no recovery * * * ’ ” , and “ ' * * under such circumstances the law requires you to and it is your duty to return a verdict for the defendant,’ ” “ ‘ * * * the plaintiff cannot recover * * * because contributory negligence constitut
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
Co., , City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, 1 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Company v. Barnes 415 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Southern Pacific Company v. Barnes 415 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by