DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reichardt v. Albert, 361 P.2d 934.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
  • Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
    Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App.
  • Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
  • Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
    “It is not necessary to the giving of an instruction that the evidence should establish conclusively the hypothesis stated in it; if there is any evidence conducing to establish the assumption it is sufficient to authorize the giving of the instruction, and it is for the jury to find whether the facts stated are made out by the evidence.”
  • McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    City of Tucson v. Holliday, 3 Ariz.App.
  • Townsend v. Whatton 521 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Townsend v. Whatton 521 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    : “ ‘ * * * It is not necessary to the giving of an instruction that the evidence should establish conclusively the hypothesis stated in it; if there is any evidence conducing to establish the assumption it is sufficient to auth
  • McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Randall 443 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Worthington v. Funk 442 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Worthington v. Funk 442 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
  • Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
  • Rowley v. Rowley 440 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Rowley v. Rowley 440 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    In determining whether particular instructions should he given, the evidence should be viewed favorably to supporting *573 the instruction, , , , , Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corp., 3 Ariz.App.
  • Riley v. Jones 430 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Riley v. Jones 430 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    If there was any lingering doubt after the rehearing decision in Wolfswinkel , it was made clear by subsequent decisions of our Supreme Court, , , , and Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , 2 Terzis, supra, authored by Windes, J., the same justice who wrote the Wolfswinkel opinions, says: “The court instructed the jury that the plaint
  • Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
  • Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
    approved almost the identical words.
  • Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
  • Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
    we approved of the following language : “ ‘ * * * It is not necessary to the giving of an instruction that the evidence should establish conclusively the hypothesis stated in it; if there is any evidence conducing to establish the assumption it is sufficient to authorize the giving of the instruction, a
  • 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
  • City of Tucson v. Holliday 411 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • City of Tucson v. Holliday 411 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    In' Order to determine whether an instruction' on assumption of risk should have been given, the evidence should be construed most favorably to the defendant’s position, , and therefore a few additional bits of testimony should be stated.
  • Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley 407 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley 407 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    A: “In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.” , as authority for their requested instruction.
  • LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
  • LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
  • J. H. Welch & Son Contracting Co. v. Gardner 392 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
  • J. H. Welch & Son Contracting Co. v. Gardner 392 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
  • Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter 376 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1962
  • Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter 376 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1962
    When the jury finds that a party fails to slow to what reasonable prudence demands as an “appropriate reduced speed” this is a finding of negligence, not merely prima facie evidence of negligence, Wolfe v. Ornelas, supra