Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trojanovich v. Marshall, 388 P.2d 149.

74 citing documents.

State v. Bouck 241 P.3d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Bouck 241 P.3d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 11 Bouck, however, , holds that AR.S.
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Salt River Project Agric.
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
“[Pjlaintiff cannot recover in this case.”
Copeland v. City of Yuma 772 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Copeland v. City of Yuma 772 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The City acknowledges this general proposition, , , to assert that an erroneous contributory negligence instruction constitutes fundamental error and is reviewable upon appeal.
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Johnson v. Elliott 537 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1975
Johnson v. Elliott 537 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1975
Home Indemnity Company v. Bush 513 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Home Indemnity Company v. Bush 513 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The only question remaining is whether the emphasized portion of the reread instruction constitutes “fundamental and reversible error in that it deprived appellant of a constitutional right.”
Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The only exception to this rule is where such an instruction constitutes “fundamental and reversible error in that it deprived appellant of a constitutional right.”
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
the court noted that instructions in contravention of the constitution constitute fundamental error and can be raised for the first time on appeal.
Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Nagle v. Conger 456 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Nagle v. Conger 456 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Patania v. Silverstone, 3 Ariz.App.
Kelch v. Courson 447 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1968
Kelch v. Courson 447 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1968
Brooker v. Canny 446 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1968
Brooker v. Canny 446 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1968
For example, in Trojanovich v. Marshall, 95 * P.2d 149 , we construed A.R.S.
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Holtz v. Holder, supra; , Krek v. Briel, supra.
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
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In such circumstances, it is immaterial whether the conduct of the defendant was more negligent than that of the plaintiff.” (Emphasis added) On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the giving of this instruction was “fundamental error,”
Brooker v. Canny 439 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Brooker v. Canny 439 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
* * * ” (Emphasis supplied) , had expressly cited A.R.S.
Doubek v. Greco 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Doubek v. Greco 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
§ 28-754 subsec, A: “No person shall turn a vehicle * * * to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left on a roadway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.” 1 (Emphasis supplied) , our Supreme Court, expressly citing A.R.S.
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
s instruction violated Article 18, Section 5, of the Arizona Constitution, A. R.S., 1 , on rehearing , and that the giving thereof was such “fundamental error” that it can be raised without having objected to same at the time of settling instructions
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
First, plaintiffs contend that it was error to give an instruction on contributory negligence which contained the words “then I instruct you that he was negligent.” , ; , ; , , etc. These cases do not support their contention.
Whitly v. Moore 427 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Whitly v. Moore 427 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967