Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tucson Utility Supplies, Inc. v. Gallagher, 433 P.2d 629.

33 citing documents.

L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Continental Telephone Co. v. Blazzard 716 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Continental Telephone Co. v. Blazzard 716 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Frank Culver Electric, Inc. v. Jorgenson 664 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Frank Culver Electric, Inc. v. Jorgenson 664 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Miller v. Arnal Corp. 632 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Miller v. Arnal Corp. 632 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Livesay v. State 615 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1980
Livesay v. State 615 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1980
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Ball Corporation v. George 556 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ball Corporation v. George 556 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
It is the rule that instructions must be based on some theory supported by the evidence in the case, , Tucson Utility Supplies, , , reversed on other grounds, , and it is reversible error to instruct on a theory which is not supported by the facts since the court thereby invites the jury to speculate as to possible non-existen
State v. Loyd 212 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1973
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tucson Utility Supplies, , The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hudson, 15 Ariz.App.
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Goslin v. Bacome 489 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1971
Goslin v. Bacome 489 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1971
We have held *434 in Tucson Utility Supplies, , that where the contents of a requested instruction are substantially the same as that given by the court, no grounds exist for contending that the jury has been improperly charged.
Vance v. Hammer 464 P.2d 340 Ariz. 1970
Vance v. Hammer 464 P.2d 340 Ariz. 1970
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tucson Utility Supplies, , Aguilar v. Carpenter, 1 Ariz.App.
Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
While, as an appellate court, we are in no position to hold that any value placed by the trial court on this stock between the outer limits set by this evidence is erroneous, Tucson Utility Supplies, , we'believe in the peculiar circumstances here, basic justice will be denied if the husband is deprived of all interest in this stock and he is required to commence a new career with very little in the way of assets.