Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Layton v. Rocha, 368 P.2d 444.

173 citing documents.

Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
at 395, ¶26, 46 P.3d at 406 ( , ).
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Co., ( , that the words “should” or “may” be used in instructing the jury on contributory negligence, Oklahoma juries should be instructed that they “should” or “must” decide in the defendant’s favor if they find contributory negligence).
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Thus “(f)rom 1920 to the present time it has been consistently held that when there is evidence that the plaintiff was negligent, whether such negligence was a contributing cause of the injury as would deprive plaintiff of the right to recovery was solely a question for the jury.”
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
This holding was reaffirmed 40 (whether contributory negligence deprives the plaintiff of the right to recover is “solely a question for the jury”), and continues unabated to the present.
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Schwab v. Matley 793 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1990
Schwab v. Matley 793 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1990
Aztlan Lodge No. 1 v. Ruffner 745 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Aztlan Lodge No. 1 v. Ruffner 745 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, , Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
-71 , -45 (1962) (instruction that jury “must” find for defendant if it finds that the facts establish contributory negligence would be unconstitutional); , (jury should be instructed on law of contributory negligence but cannot be perempt
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Cheney v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 698 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1985
Cheney v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 698 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1985
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
See Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 5
Brannigan v. Raybuck 667 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1983
Brannigan v. Raybuck 667 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1983
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
art. 18, § 5; , -71 , -51 , -34 (App.1980).
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
356 , such as where constitutional infirmities are in question, , or where the very foundation of the case is undercut, Wagner v. Coronet Hotel, 10 Ariz.App.
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.
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
The problem here arises out of the different meanings attributable to the word “should.” , we said: “Since under our decisions a verdict for the plaintiff is permissible irrespective of the strength of the evidence concerning plaintiff’s negligence, and the jury under the law as announced may decide the issue for plaintiff even though the evidence clearly shows he was guilty of contrib
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
As we said once under similar circumstances, “It is too speculative.”
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
If you determine each of these issues in favor of the plaintiff, then you must find for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.” , , and Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
State v. Cress 528 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974