Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Odekirk v. Austin, 366 P.2d 80.

47 citing documents.

Dykeman v. Engelbrecht 803 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Criticized Dykeman v. Engelbrecht 803 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dorman v. Swift & Co. 757 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dorman v. Swift & Co. 757 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Kenison v. Schaeffer 608 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
McCurdy v. Stage 602 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
McCurdy v. Stage 602 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
(applying Restatement (1st) of Torts, Secs.
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Arizona’s leading case on the doctrine of last clear chance, set forth the elements of the theory as applied to this case: “(a) The plaintiff has negligently subjected himself to a danger which he could have avoided by the exercise of reasonable vigilance; (b) the defendant actually saw or knew o
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Minyard v. Hildebrand 539 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Minyard v. Hildebrand 539 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Schneider v. MacAri 533 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1975
Schneider v. MacAri 533 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1975
ted himself to a danger which he could have avoided by the exercise of reasonable vigilance; (b) the defendant actually saw or knew of the plaintiff’s situation and realized or ought to have realized that the plaintiff was inattentive, and (c) the defendant thereafter has a last clear chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable care and fails to do so.”
Perez v. Frenda 503 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Perez v. Frenda 503 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
we state the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs-appellants.
Brunner v. Young 493 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brunner v. Young 493 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The pertinent facts, stated in the light most favorable to the plaintiff-appellant, , are as follows: On November 16, 1969, plaintiff’s decedent, Boza Brunner, was struck and killed by an automobile driven by defendant, Stewart Leigh Young.
State v. Stevens 490 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1971
State v. Stevens 490 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1971
(overruled on other grounds)
Hibner v. Gleason 408 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1970
Hibner v. Gleason 408 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1970
The most definitive expression of this court’s
Evans v. Dineen 459 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1969
Evans v. Dineen 459 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
ted himself to a danger which he could have avoided by the exercise of reasonable vigilance; (b) the defendant actually saw or knew of the plaintiff’s situation and realized or ought to have realized that the plaintiff was inattentive, and (c) the defendant thereafter had a last clear chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable care and fails to do so.”
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Aguilar v. Carpenter 399 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Aguilar v. Carpenter 399 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
American Smelting & Refining *39 , ; , ; Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 480.
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
Egurrola v. Szychowski 388 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1964
Egurrola v. Szychowski 388 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1964
Sheehy v. Murphy 380 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1963
Sheehy v. Murphy 380 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1963
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
Plaintiff-appellee admits that this instruction was an incorrect statement of the law in view of this court’s , which was handed down after the instant case was tried.
State v. Fields 373 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1962
State v. Fields 373 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1962
In doing so we may look exclusively at defendant’s evidence, although it: is in conflict with that introduced by the State, since the test is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is any evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, Everett v. State, supra
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
As this Court recently stated in Odekirk v. Austin, Ariz., , 81: “ * * * the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable in this jurisdiction under the following circumstances: 1.
Terzis v. Miles 366 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1961
Terzis v. Miles 366 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1961
Odekirk v. Austin, Ariz., .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by