Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Electrical Advertising, Inc. v. Sakato, 381 P.2d 755.

36 citing documents.

Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
see also Electrical Advertising, 3 MILLER, et al. v. HILL Decision of the Court (“Failure to formally amend the pleadings will not affect a judgment based upon competent evidence.”).
Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Adver., (“When evidence is presented at trial which presents a new o[r] different theory from that alleged in the pleadings, and the adverse party does not object to the introduction thereof, that issue is then tried by implied consent.”).
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Adver., (“If an amendment to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been made, an appellate court will presume that it was so made to support the judgment.”); (“[W]hen issues not within the pleadings have been made and tried b
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Adver., , (“When evidence is presented at trial which presents a new or different theory from that alleged in the pleadings, and the adverse party does not object to the introduction thereof, that issue is then tried by implied consent.”).
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
But “[i]f an amendment to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been made, an appellate court will presume that it was so made.” Electrical Advertising, , Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1980) (where an affidavit opposing a summary judgment motion clarifies a complaint’s vague allegations, courts should construe that affidavit as a Rule 15(b) request to amend pleadings); see also 3 James W. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice §
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pacific American Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Building Systems, Inc. 730 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pacific American Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Building Systems, Inc. 730 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
WARRANTIES Building Systems argues that there is an implied warranty of fitness in every lease in Arizona, citing Electrical Advertising
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc. 650 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1982
Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc. 650 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1982
If an amendment to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been made, an appellate court will presume that it was so made to support the judgment.” Electrical Advertising, , -57 (1963).
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
* * In Electrical Advertising, , we construed Rule 15(b), holding: “When evidence is presented at trial which presents a new or different theory from that alleged in the pleadings, and the adverse party does not object to the introduction thereof, that issue is then tried by implied consent.
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
A procedurally similar situation was presented in the case of Electrical Advertising, Inc. v. Sakato, *86 , wherein our Supreme Court stated: “When evidence is presented at trial which presents a new or different theory from that alleged in the pleadings, and the adverse party does not object to the introduction thereof, that issue is then tried by implied consent.
Glitsos v. Kadish 418 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Glitsos v. Kadish 418 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
And our Supreme Court has recently stated : “When evidence is presented at trial which presents a new or different theory from that alleged in the pleadings, and the adverse party does not object to the introduction thereof, that issue is then tried by implied consent.” Electrical Advertising
Temp-Rite Engineering Co. v. Chesin Construction Co. 413 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Temp-Rite Engineering Co. v. Chesin Construction Co. 413 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Electrical Advertising, , [1963]; Grammas v. Colasurdo, supra.” 1 Ariz.App.
Loya v. Fong 404 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Loya v. Fong 404 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Electrical Advertising, , [1963]; Grammas v. Colasurdo, supra.
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Ramirez 400 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Ramirez 400 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
If an amendment to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been made, an appellate court will presume that it was so made to support the judgment.”
Hatfield v. ARIZONA HIGHWAY PATROL MERIT SYS. COUN. 396 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1964
Hatfield v. ARIZONA HIGHWAY PATROL MERIT SYS. COUN. 396 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1964
Electrical Advertising, , .