Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company, 427 P.2d 519.

54 citing documents.

Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Then, “[t]he proximate cause of an injury is that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.”
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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); Caldwell v. Tremper
Crown v. Raymond 764 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Crown v. Raymond 764 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rose Trucking Co., , Hebert v. Club 37 Bar, , Christy v. Baker, 7 Ariz.App.
Tennen v. Lane 716 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Tennen v. Lane 716 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Rose Trucking Co., , (when there is any evidence of negligent conduct which reasonable men might infer was one of the proximate causes of an accident, the cause must be submitted to the jury).
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rose Trucking Co., , Prosser, supra § 44 at 304.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 16 Ariz.App.
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Berry v. McLeod 604 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1979
Berry v. McLeod 604 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1979
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem 567 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem 567 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
*290 , , Peterson v. Salt River Project Agr.
State v. Cress 528 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Cress 528 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
See, Orlando v. Northcutt, supra
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
states: “When a motion for a directed verdict is made by a defendant, the trial court must consider all the competent and relevant evidence introduced tending to sustain the plaintiff’s claim, whether offered by plaintiff or defendant, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the stronge
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, 335 F.2d 932 (9th Cir., 1964); , ; , , Rogers v. Mountain States Tel.
Hidalgo v. Cochise County 474 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Hidalgo v. Cochise County 474 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Although it is true that violation of a statute may constitute negligence per se, , it is also the rule that the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are the class of persons whom the statute was designed to protect.
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morari v. Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance Company 468 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1970
Morari v. Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance Company 468 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1970
It was the manner of removal from the truck which was the negligent act or omission without which the injury could not have occurred, , , and this negligent act was connected with the unloading.
Zelman v. Stauder 466 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Zelman v. Stauder 466 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
McDowell v. Davis 448 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1968
McDowell v. Davis 448 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1968
Salt River Valley Water Users’