Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Robledo v. Kopp, 409 P.2d 288.

26 citing documents.

Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“A prima facie case requires that there be evidence to justify, not necessarily compel, an inference of liability.” 10 9 Although the superior court struck REM and Aspen’s answers and later recognized it had entered a default against Aspen, they still pled to the merits by moving for summary judgment and filing a counterclaim.
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Glendale v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 613 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1980
City of Glendale v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 613 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1980
Middleton v. Wallichs Music & Entertainment Co. 536 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Middleton v. Wallichs Music & Entertainment Co. 536 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Economy v. Frohme 474 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Economy v. Frohme 474 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Avechuco v. Awtrey 470 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1970
Avechuco v. Awtrey 470 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1970
Casey v. Beaudry Motor Co., supra; , .
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
The law presumes that the deceased did exercise due care unless the contrary is made to appear.” , , we said: “It is generally accepted that where a person is killed by a violent injury and there are no eye witnesses there is a presumption that decedent was exercising due care at the time or that he was not seeking death by suicide.
Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
See also In re O’Conner’s Estate, , In re Pitt’s Estate
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967
6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.10 [1]; , ; , .
Brand v. J. H. Rose Trucking Co. 418 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Lantay v. McLean, 2 Ariz.App.
Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
The Arizona Supreme Court stated at , 409 P.2d at 287 citing Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, supra: “Where an employee is about to terminate his employment within a few days, failure to notify the employer of service of process on the employee may constitute *472 conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” In Coconino