DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

  • State v. Cress 528 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
  • Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
  • DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Rhind v. Kearney 521 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Rhind v. Kearney 521 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    Rather, it gives the jury the right to opt against contributory negligence if it feels so disposed.” Appellant’s argument that Heimke v. Munoz, supra, , , which cited Layton with approval.
  • Shaya v. Petzoldt 515 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Shaya v. Petzoldt 515 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    If you find that the decedent assumed the risk in such a case, the plaintiff should not recover.” (Emphasis added) The courts of this state have approved instructions concerning contributory negligence which include the language that the “verdict must be for the defendant.”
  • Home Indemnity Company v. Bush 513 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Home Indemnity Company v. Bush 513 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    nor in our opinion do they undercut the very foundation of the [parties’] causes of action.
  • Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    gligent conduct on the part of a defendant, if any, you may find for the plaintiff, as under the Constitution of Arizona, both questions of law and questions of fact involved in the defense of contributory negligence, as well as the ultimate issue of the liability of the defendants, are matters solely for your decision as jurors.” He argues that this is the law of Arizona
  • Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    nor in our opinion do they undercut the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ causes of action.
  • Moser v. Mardian Construction Company 509 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Moser v. Mardian Construction Company 509 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    The instructions, , nor in our opinion do they undercut the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ causes of action.
  • Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Criticized Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    126 , (vacated by the above-cit•ed Arizona Supreme Court Heimke opinion), , criticized the Layton doctrine, setting forth many of the arguments raised by defendant in this appeal.
  • Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    'THE NEGLIGENCE INSTRUCTION On the issue of contributory negligence - , the pertinent part thereof reading as follows: “.
  • Johnson v. Garnand 501 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Johnson v. Garnand 501 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich, supra.
  • City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
  • Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
    wherein we held that under Article 18, Section 5, the trial cour.t cannot direct a verdict even though the plaintiff’s contributory negligence [or assumption of risk] is undisputed, and the trial court must not, directly or indirectly, ins
  • Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
  • Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
    That issue went to the jury on the instructions as given on the basis of the standard of conduct required of him, and on the general charge of relating to contributory negligence, pursuant to Art. 18, § 5, Arizona State Constitution, A.R.S.
  • Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    it is clear that the jury still has a right to return a verdict in favor of a plaintiff although the facts conclusively show that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
  • Chavez v. Pima County 477 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Chavez v. Pima County 477 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    o return a verdict against the plaintiff and thus violates the Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 5, A.R.S., which states: “The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” (Emphasis added)
  • Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
  • Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
    The Court of Appeals, while expressing reservations, , .
  • Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    states in part that “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto * * The instruction does not deprive either party of a constitutional right, , nor does it undercut the foundation of the action.
  • Zadro v. Snyder 464 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Zadro v. Snyder 464 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    Under Arizona’s Constitution, Art. 18 § 5, , the jury, when finding contributory negligence, is not compelled to find for the defendant.
  • Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Heimke v. Munoz 462 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Malinski v. Pember 453 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Malinski v. Pember 453 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
  • Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
    Lastly, argue appellants, it was error to instruct the jury that “ * * * if you find * * * that the death * * * was not caused in whole or in part by the motor vehicle driven by any particular defendant, you must return your verdict in favor of that defendant.” The complaint is that the instruction was bad because it used the word “must,” , , and cases following it.
  • Kelch v. Courson 447 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1968