Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 373 P.2d 370.

38 citing documents.

A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
We will not “disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court when supported by substantial evidence.” Cantlay & Tanzola, , (“LAjll the evidence and inferences therefrom must be reviewed by this court in the light most favorable to sustain the judgment of the lower court.”).
Falcon v. Beverly Hills Mortgage Corp. 815 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1991
Falcon v. Beverly Hills Mortgage Corp. 815 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1991
Cantlay & Tanzola, , (appellate court must not disturb findings and judgment of trial court when supported by substantial evidence, and all evidence and inferences therefrom must be reviewed in light most favorable to sustain judgment); 17B A.R.S.
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc. 690 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc. 690 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cantlay & Tanzola, , Tovrea Land & , Dunlop v. Haybuster Mfg.
City of Phoenix v. SUPERIOR COURT, CTY. OF MARICOPA 514 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1973
City of Phoenix v. SUPERIOR COURT, CTY. OF MARICOPA 514 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1973
Packer v. Donaldson 492 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Packer v. Donaldson 492 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Cantlay & Tanzola, , ; Tuab Mineral Corp. v. Anderson, 3 Ariz.App.
Marquess v. Spaner 488 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Marquess v. Spaner 488 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Cantlay & , ; Tuab Mineral Corp. v. Anderson, 3 Ariz.App.
Lane v. Bisceglia 488 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lane v. Bisceglia 488 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Cantlay & Tanzola, , Tuab Mineral Corp. v. Anderson, 3 Ariz.App.
Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
Lane Title and Trust Company v. Brannan 440 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1968
Lane Title and Trust Company v. Brannan 440 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1968
(decided April 3, 1968); Cantlay & Tanzola, , .
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
See, e. g., Cantlay & Tanzola, , .
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
Cantlay & Tanzola, , .
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
In Cantlay & Tanzola, , this court said it would review all evidence and inferences most favorably to support the trial court’s findings and judgment and will not disturb that judgment if supported by substantial evidence, but we are not bound by the conclusions of law of the trial court as applied to those findings of fact.
Mann v. Hennessey 409 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Mann v. Hennessey 409 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
44 A.L.R.2d 513 (1951); Combustion Engineering, , Cantlay & Tanxola
Miller v. Boeger 405 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Miller v. Boeger 405 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hunsaker v. Smith 399 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hunsaker v. Smith 399 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners v. Clark 398 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1965
Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners v. Clark 398 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1965
In Cantlay & Tanzola, , , a case involving the review of a Corporation Commission order, we said: “We have repeatedly held that we will not disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court when supported by substantial evidence, and that all the evidence and inferences therefrom must be reviewed by this court in t
Williams v. Corporation Commission 396 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1964
Williams v. Corporation Commission 396 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1964
Nor can any rate-fixing power be implied in light of the legislative history of this statute which was discussed in Cantlay & Tanzola
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 388 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1963
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 388 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1963
2 After a change in its method of operation so that it served only one oil company, one of the unsuccessful appellants in the Reliable case was held to be entitled to a “contract carriers” certificate in Cantlay & Tanzola, , .
Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Williams 380 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1963
Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Williams 380 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1963
However, upon appeal (Cantlay & Tanzola, , [1962]), this court reversed the lower court, holding that the refusal of the Commission to grant the permit “was unreasonable and arbitrary.” The trial court thereafter ordered that the matter be referred back to the Arizona Corporation Commission “to grant same [the permit] in conformity with this jud