Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bohmfalk v. Vaughan, 357 P.2d 617.

90 citing documents.

Larsen v. Larsen 466 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Larsen v. Larsen 466 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., 10 Ariz.App.
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kosak v. Mabb 459 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc. 459 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kosak v. Mabb 459 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Garrett v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford 427 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Garrett v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford 427 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 713, p. 159; 5 C.J.S.
Milam v. Milam 419 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1966
Milam v. Milam 419 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1966
McDermott v. O'Brien 409 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
McDermott v. O'Brien 409 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Linsenmeyer v. Flood 405 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Linsenmeyer v. Flood 405 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Although the facts are strongly disputed, the evidence taken in the strongest light in favor of the court’s decision, , Deuel v. McCollum, 1 Ariz.App.
EUREKA-SECURITY FIRE & MARINE INSU. CO. v. Simon 401 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Johnson v. Hill 402 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Dowdle v. Young 401 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
EUREKA-SECURITY FIRE & MARINE INSU. CO. v. Simon 401 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Atchison, Topeka & , , 357 P.2d617 (1960).
Dowdle v. Young 401 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
t. “Parol evidence is always admissible to show fraud, even though it has the effect of varying the terms of a writing between the parties.” Lufty v. R. D. Roper & Sons Motor Co. (1941), , ; Pioneer Constructors v. Symes (1954), , , 41 A.L.R.2d 668 ; Lusk Corporation v. Burgess (1958), , ; Bohmfalk v. Vaughan (1960), , .
Johnson v. Hill 402 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
(Citations) Under such circumstances the evidence will be taken in the strongest manner in favor of the plaintiff and in support of the court’s findings, and the judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it.” (Citations) Bohmfalk v. Vaughan (1960), , .
Deuel v. McCollum 400 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Deuel v. McCollum 400 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners v. Clark 398 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1965
Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners v. Clark 398 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1965
Musgrove v. Leonard 396 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1964
Musgrove v. Leonard 396 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1964
620: “It is our steadfast rule that we will not disturb the finding and judgment of the trial court based upon conflicting evidence regardless of whether it' was tried to the court or to a jury.
Lenslite Co. v. Zocher 388 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1964
Lenslite Co. v. Zocher 388 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1964
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
Winterton v. Lannon, supra.
Lowther v. Hopper Truck Lines 377 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1962
Lowther v. Hopper Truck Lines 377 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1962
-40 , , in which this Court held that a plaintiff need not plead fraud in order to introduce evidence of fraud for the purpose of avoiding the effect of a document contained in defendants’ answer and relied on by defendant as a defense: “However, in this case the plaintiff was only required to ple
Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner 373 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner 373 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
that: “ * * * where a verdict is advisory, the finding made by the trial court, and not the answers given by the jury to interrogatories determines the judgment, and that it is the judgment of the trial court and not the answers of the jury which must be assumed to be correct.” , Ariz.R.Civ.P.