Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Throop v. FE Young and Company, 382 P.2d 560.

127 citing documents.

Lewis v. Cooley 480 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
606 , and Fiske v. Wilkie, 67 Cal.App.2d 440 , , ; , ; Sawyer v. People’s Freight Lines
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
and Throop v. F. E. Young & Co.
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Ogonowski v. Bankers Leasing Corp. 447 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ogonowski v. Bankers Leasing Corp. 447 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
some one’s negligence; “(2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; “(3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff; “(4) plaintiff must not be in a position to show the particular circumstances which caused the offending agency or instrumentality to operate to his injury.” , First Nat.
O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
we said: “ ‘ * * * the doctrine (res ipsa loquitur) is predicated upon plaintiff’s inability to specify the act of negligence which caused his injury, and therefore permits him to rely on the doctrine as a substitute for specific proof, * * * ’ 68 Ariz. at 322 , 205 P.2d at 594” The uncontradicted tes
Smith v. Goodman 430 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Smith v. Goodman 430 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
which case in turn cites Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , and in the light of the rule stated in Deisler, we are unable to state that there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Davidson v. Wee 424 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Davidson v. Wee 424 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
395, 407 , , to have found a sufficient foundation in this regard.
Han v. Horwitz 407 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Han v. Horwitz 407 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Throop v. F. E. Young & Co.
City of Phoenix v. Boggs 403 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
City of Phoenix v. Boggs 403 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company 403 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company 403 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
[1963], For the reasons herein stated, the judgment rendered below is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc. 399 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1965
Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc. 399 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1965
Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , ; Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 195.
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Hamman Wholesale Lumber & Supply Co. 390 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1964
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Hamman Wholesale Lumber & Supply Co. 390 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1964
Throop v. F. E. Young & Company, , ; United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 , 67 S.Ct.