Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dobbertin v. Johnson, 390 P.2d 849.

32 citing documents.

Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Rose Trucking Co., , (Interstate Commerce Commission Motor Carrier Safety Regulations); , (traffic ordinance); Young Candy & , (statute relating to the operation of motor vehicles); , (concerning liability for death which resulted when defendant's illegally modified and o
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Center, , (the standard imposed upon one who owes a duty of care is “that of the conduct of a reasonably prudent man under the circumstances”); , (standard is that degree of care that a “reasonable” or “ordinary” person would exercise in the same situation).
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe 672 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1983
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe 672 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1983
NOTES [1] , cited by the court of appeals in support of the above-quoted statement, does contain such language.
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See, , Townsend v. Whatton, Jr., 21 Ariz.App.
Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
83 , (no perception of an emergency situation); , (emergency caused by the actor’s own negligence); , (no alternative courses of action).
Carlson v. Tucson Racquet & Swim Club, Inc. 619 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Carlson v. Tucson Racquet & Swim Club, Inc. 619 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
Woods v. Harker, 22 Ariz.App.
Woods v. Harker 523 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Woods v. Harker 523 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Jefferson 516 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1973
State v. Jefferson 516 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1973
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Considering first the sufficiency of the evidence, , for the principle that before the giving of an imminent peril instruction is justified, the evidence must show that after the peril arises, there is time for the allegedly negligent person to react to that peril and make a choice from two or more courses of action available to avoid the peril in
Stump v. Fitzgerald 484 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Stump v. Fitzgerald 484 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The following cases are illustrative: , , ; , Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Company, 2 Ariz.App.
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Company, , J. H. Welch & , ; , , ; Young Candy & , ; , , ; , 336 P.2d
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
The case they cite to support their view— , —is not in point.
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In support of this contention, . , *565 (1964).
Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Co. 409 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Co. 409 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
City of Phoenix v. Schroeder 405 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
City of Phoenix v. Schroeder 405 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965