Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mantovani v. Green, 368 P.2d 448.

30 citing documents.

Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Steed v. Cuevas, supra; Purchase v. Mardian Construction Co., Inc., 21 Ariz.App.
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
[T]he court in Mantovani [ , ] did not repudiate the well known principle that in order for negligent acts or omissions to constitute ‘contributory negligence’, it must be proven that plaintiff’s acts or omissions proximately caused his injury.
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
The instruction meets the requirements of a , , which was cited by Jones Construction.
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Here the evidence showed a disputed fact situation as to whether the plaintiff observed the position of the defendant’s trucks
McDowell v. Davis 448 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 448 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
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
Thus, if you find that both the defendant and the plaintiff were guilty of negligence, and that the negligence of both contributed to the damages, you are instructed that your verdict should be for the defendant, regardless of whether either was more negligent than the other.” (Emphasis supplied) , and correctly states the law.
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
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
opinion written by Windes, J., who also authored the Layton decision, the court held it was proper to refuse an instruction telling the jury it was “ * * * the trier of both law and fact.” ( , ).
State v. Saiz 413 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Saiz 413 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Edwards 399 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Edwards 399 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
We will presume no error where none has been shown, , nor will we go behind the record in an attempt to find error.