Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association, 365 P.2d 476.

66 citing documents.

Puckett v. Manghram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Puckett v. Manghram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
& Loan Ass’n, -64 (1961) (noting where one party has broken a contract, damages may amount to what “‘may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract’”) (quoting Shurtleff v. Occidental Bldg.
Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc. 223 P.3d 664 Ariz. 2010
Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc. 223 P.3d 664 Ariz. 2010
& Loan Ass'n, -64, -83 (1961) (adopting rule of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch.
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
& Loan Ass’n, , , (jury argument is subject to reasonable regulation).
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass’n, , -483 (1961) (citing Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch.
State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Ass’n, , Shurtleff v. Occidental Building & Loan Ass’n, 105 Neb.
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Throop v. F. E. Young & Company, , , City of Phoenix v. Boggs, 1 Ariz.App.
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 609 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 609 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
Southern Arizona School For Boys
State v. Starks 596 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Starks 596 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1979
Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association
State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Ass’n
Markiewicz v. SALT RIVER VALLEY, ETC. 576 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Markiewicz v. SALT RIVER VALLEY, ETC. 576 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See, , Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association
State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
City of Phoenix v. Boggs, 1 Ariz.App.
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
We believe the pictures were admissible to show that some of the gusset plates were cut away at the corners: “ * * * The trial judge’s ‘considerable discretion’ exists with respect to (1) the picture’s accuracy in portraying the object photographed, and (2) the practical utility of the photograph to the jury.”
Porterie v. Peters 532 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1975
Porterie v. Peters 532 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1975
Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association
State v. Jefferson 516 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1973
State v. Jefferson 516 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1973
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
stated: “In determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence the trial judge is invested with considerable discretion.
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
See, , Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association
State v. Carrillo 502 P.2d 1343 Ariz. 1972
State v. Carrillo 502 P.2d 1343 Ariz. 1972
Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Assoc.
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
Nevertheless, in this case we cannot find that it was so prejudicial that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial.” , .
Briskman v. Del Monte Mortgage Company 458 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Briskman v. Del Monte Mortgage Company 458 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Higgins v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association