Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

City of Phoenix v. Schroeder 405 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Article 18, Section 5, Arizona Constitution, A.R.S.
Vegodsky v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Vegodsky v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
This decision is, of course
Sax v. Kopelman 396 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1964
Sax v. Kopelman 396 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1964
Trojanovich v. Marshall 388 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
Trojanovich v. Marshall 388 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1963
we held that under the provision of our Constitution, A.R.S.Const.
Lutz v. Faith 386 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1963
Lutz v. Faith 386 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1963
is controlling on this point, but asks us to reconsider and overrule that decision.
Bechtel v. Benson 385 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1963
Bechtel v. Benson 385 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1963
where we disapproved the giving of an instruction to the effect that the jury was permitted to find an amount in accordance with the evidence whether more or less than the amount requested in the complaint.
Mitchell v. Colquette 379 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1963
Mitchell v. Colquette 379 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1963
Further error was committed in the wording of the instructions themselves, hy using imperative directives such as “your verdict must be for the defendants.” Alires v. Southern Pacific Co., supra
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter 376 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1962
Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter 376 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1962
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich 375 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1962
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
For reasons discussed hereafter, the case must be retried
Mantovani v. Green 368 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1962
Mantovani v. Green 368 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1962
Layton v. *378 Rocha, 90 Ariz.-