Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Parr, 391 P.2d 575.

50 citing documents.

MacNeil v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
MacNeil v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(explaining motions not ruled on are deemed denied)).
Imh v. Beck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Imh v. Beck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(Motions the superior court does not rule on are deemed denied.).
Whiles v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Whiles v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. v. Parr , , 15, (motions not ruled upon deemed denied by operation of law).
Landell M. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Landell M. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding that motions not ruled upon at the time of judgment are deemed denied by operation of law).
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(finding that motions not ruled upon by the trial court are denied by operation of law).
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(motions not ruled upon deemed denied by operation of law).
Brian H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Brian H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(holding that motions not ruled upon at the time of judgment are deemed denied by operation of law).
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
-79 (1964), could conclude that in the exercise of ordinary care, a safer design was feasible.
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
A jury is not prevented “from using (its) own good judgment and from concluding that a particular practice or condition is unreasonably dangerous, just because there is an absence of expert opinion.” Atchison, , (jury allowed to consider whether restricted visibility of cab in crane was unreasonably dangerous condition although no expert was produced to testify to such a conclusion).
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See also, Atchison, Topeka & , which cites Boyce and the need for expert testimony to establish malpractice or breach of the standard of care unless the negligence is so clearly apparent that a layman can recognize it; Kleinman v. Armour, 12 Ariz.App.
McElwain v. Schuckert 477 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
McElwain v. Schuckert 477 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Defendant correctly cites the case of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., v. Parr, , , (1964), for the established rule that “a motion which is not ruled upon is deemed denied by operation of law.” Plowever, an offer of evidence is not a “motion,” hence, it is not within the purview of the rule.
Mandelbaum v. Knutson 462 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Mandelbaum v. Knutson 462 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
And in Atchison, , our Supreme Court was faced with a similar challenge.
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
It was taken from Atchison, Topeka, , .
Reliance Truck Co. v. Plummer 447 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Reliance Truck Co. v. Plummer 447 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
See Atchison, , Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1956); and Restatement of Judgments § 99, Comment b, at 494.
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
and see Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 21.
Kennecott Copper Corporation v. McDowell 413 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1966
Kennecott Copper Corporation v. McDowell 413 P.2d 749 Ariz. 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
EUREKA-SECURITY FIRE & MARINE INSU. CO. v. Simon 401 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
EUREKA-SECURITY FIRE & MARINE INSU. CO. v. Simon 401 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Atchison, Topeka & , , 357 P.2d617 (1960).