DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., 378 P.2d 741.

42 citing documents.

  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 58 (2003) (holding failure to object to evidence on Rule 403 grounds waived the objection); (holding that issue raised for the first time in a new trial motion was waived on appeal); see also Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel, Inc., (holding that the mere mention of a defendants' liability insurance is not per se prejudicial).
  • Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See generally Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel, Inc.
  • Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See generally Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel, Inc.
  • Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    See Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel
  • Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
  • Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
    Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel
  • Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    its discussion is of such a nature as to be prejudicial.” Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel, Inc., , see also, , E.L.
  • Foulk v. Kotz 673 P.2d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Foulk v. Kotz 673 P.2d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc.
  • Lewis v. Swenson 617 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Lewis v. Swenson 617 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    See Meuhlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , , Ernest Yeager & Sons, Inc. v. Howell, 234 So.2d 899 (Miss.1970).
  • Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1979
  • Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1979
    E. g., Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary & Chapel, Inc.
  • Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    In Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , our Supreme Court rejected the traditional rule that any evidence, implication or suggestion of liability insurance in a negligence action constitutes error.
  • Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    354 , the presence of insurance or workmen’s compensation insurance; Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , E. L. Jones Construction Company v. Noland, supra; Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., supra ; State v. Juengel, 15 Ariz.App.
  • Davis v. Marquardt 513 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Davis v. Marquardt 513 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    We no longer automatically declare a mistrial at the mere mention of the term “insurance.” Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc.
  • Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc.
  • Swick v. White 504 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Swick v. White 504 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    In Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary, Inc., , the Court stated: “Now, these judicial reminders to lawyers and trial judges about what really goes on in the world do not, of course, make the issue of liability insurance any more relevant in the run-of-the-mine automobile accident case.
  • Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    2 This strict rule was modified by our Supreme Court in Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , to the effect that the mere mention of the word “insurance” once in a trial did not justify a mistrial.
  • E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
  • E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
    Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , ; Consolidated Motors, , ; Myers v. Rollette, 6 Ariz.App.
  • Miller v. Schafer 432 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1967
  • Miller v. Schafer 432 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1967
    Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , .
  • Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Consolidated Motors, , Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary And Chapel, Inc.
  • Hastings v. Thurston 413 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1966
  • Hastings v. Thurston 413 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1966
    See, e. g., Muehleback v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , .
  • Egurrola v. Szychowski 388 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1964
  • Egurrola v. Szychowski 388 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1964
    Mueklebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc.
  • Waid v. Bergschneider 381 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1963
  • Waid v. Bergschneider 381 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1963
    We think our recent decision in Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary, Inc., , is controlling.