Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Davis v. Weber, 380 P.2d 608.

62 citing documents.

Waterford v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Waterford v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
until such time as it becomes apparent to him, acting as a reasonable person, that the other motorist does not intend to stop or give him the right-of-way”) (emphasis added); (“It is the settled law of this jurisdiction that the driver of a vehicle on a favored highway is not necessarily free from negligence in colliding with a vehicle entering from an intersecting street.
State v. Apodaca 801 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Apodaca 801 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
our Supreme Court indicated: The fact that the driver on the favored highway has the right-of-way does not relieve him from keeping a proper lookout and yielding the right-of-way, where he can, to another motorist when the favored driver discovers that the other is not going to yield.
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1985
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1985
We have previously stated that “[i]t is the settled law in this state that the trial court must examine children under ten years of age....” , (emphasis supplied).
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The child must also demonstrate to the trial court that he understands the necessity of testifying truthfully, (citations omitted) , : It is the settled law in this state that the trial court must examine children under ten years of age to determine whether they are capable of receiving just impressions and relating them truly (citing statute) ...
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Superior Court 661 P.2d 1133 Ariz. 1983
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Superior Court 661 P.2d 1133 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
Porras v. Campbell Sales Co. 589 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Porras v. Campbell Sales Co. 589 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The test, , is: “A defendant’s motion for a directed verdict admits the truth of whatever evidence the opposing party has introduced and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.
Hendricks v. Simper 539 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hendricks v. Simper 539 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The test, , is: “A defendant’s motion for a directed verdict admits the truth of whatever evidence the opposing party has introduced and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hubbs v. Costello 528 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hubbs v. Costello 528 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Attebery 519 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1974
State v. Attebery 519 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1974
She was examined as to her competency by the trial judge, , that she was competent to testify.
State v. Perez 514 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1973
State v. Perez 514 P.2d 493 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
Slonsky v. Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Company 499 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Slonsky v. Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Company 499 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
If thus considered the evidence and inferences are sufficient to support a verdict, the motion is properly overruled, (citations omitted)” 102 Ariz. at 204 , 427 P.2d at 522 *561 , further recognizes that: “ * * * A defendant’s motion for a directed verdict admits the truth of whatever evidence the opposing party has introduced and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
To like effect, , -315 , and cases cited therein.
Avechuco v. Awtrey 470 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1970
Avechuco v. Awtrey 470 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1970
Casey v. Beaudry Motor Co., supra; , .
State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
Thompson v. State 466 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1970
Thompson v. State 466 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1970
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
They admit — , , to prove — that “The fact that the driver on *399 a favored highway has the right-of-way, does not relieve him from keeping a proper lookout.” However, they say, at the time plaintiffs discovered that defendant was entering the intersection, it was physically impossible for plaintiffs to stop in time
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
In Re Estate of Harber 428 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
In Re Estate of Harber 428 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967