Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Engler, 367 P.2d 665.

28 citing documents.

International Harvester Co. v. Fuoss 758 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
International Harvester Co. v. Fuoss 758 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
As the supreme court in State Automobile & , has stated: The defendant [surety] urges that the requirement of Rule 17(f) is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 754 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1987
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 754 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1987
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
Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., etc., , ; Day v. Wiswall’s Estate, , ; State Automobile &amp
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. 432 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. 432 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State Automobile & , .
Madsen v. Fisk 423 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Madsen v. Fisk 423 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State Automobile & , and Weber v. Bates, 3 Ariz.App.
Mozes v. Daru 420 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Mozes v. Daru 420 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., etc., , Day v. Wiswall’s Estate, , State Automobile & , ” , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona expressly stated: “There is nothing in the scant record submitted to this court on appeal which shows that
Swansea Properties, Inc. v. Hedrick 416 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Swansea Properties, Inc. v. Hedrick 416 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., etc., 100 Ariz.-, Day v. Wiswall’s Estate, , State Automobile &amp
Lawless v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 415 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1966
Lawless v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 415 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1966
Day v. Wiswall’s Estate, , State Automobile &amp
Weber v. Bates 415 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Weber v. Bates 415 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
the light of the admonition contained in Rule 56(e), as amended, wherein it is stated that: “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” As stated in State Automobile & , : “It is often extremely difficult to draw the fine distinction between a statement of a legal conclusion and a statement of an ulti
Continental Casualty Company v. Grabe Brick Co. 401 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Continental Casualty Company v. Grabe Brick Co. 401 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Lujan v. MacMurtrie 383 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1963
Lujan v. MacMurtrie 383 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1963
State Automobile & , .