Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Noland v. Wootan, 427 P.2d 143.

40 citing documents.

Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
See Kwik-Teck, (“[U]nder the circumstances in the present case, we find that the trial court committed reversible error by giving the punitive damage instruction advanced by [plaintiffs’] counsel since the language used tended to obscure the proper standard to be applied by the jury.”); (“If an instruction is misleading to the jury and prejudices the appellant’s rights, then the giving of that instruction constitutes reversible error,” and “the trial court committed reversible error by giving th
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Thompson, 187 Ariz. at 126 , 927 P.2d at 786 (citing *401 , ); Clauss, 177 Ariz. at 568 , 869 P.2d at 1221 .
In Re Leon G. 59 P.3d 779 Ariz. 2002
In Re Leon G. 59 P.3d 779 Ariz. 2002
427 P.2d, 143, 145 (1967)
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 927 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 927 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Grimes 773 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Grimes 773 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Appellant acknowledges that the “slightest degree” instruction has been approved by the Arizona courts, , , but argues that we should follow the lead of the Montana Supreme Court in mandating an instruction which requires the jury to find that a defendant’s driving ability has been impaired to the point that he is incapable of driving safely.
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Askren 710 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Askren 710 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
took “judicial notice of the terrible toll taken, both in personal injuries and *283 property damage, by drivers who mix alcohol and gasoline.” Drunk driving has become a problem of epidemic proportion in Arizona and other states throughout the country, and must be effectively dealt wit
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc. 683 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc. 683 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
In doing so, , : We take judicial notice of the terrible toll taken, both in personal injuries and property damage, by drivers who mix alcohol and gasoline ....
State Ex Rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State 663 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1983
Thomas v. Bowman 538 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Thomas v. Bowman 538 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the Arizona Supreme Court restated the rule that a person is driving under the influence of intoxicants if his control of the vehicle is affected in the slightest degree.
Thompson v. Bryson 505 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Thompson v. Bryson 505 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
[Additional citations omitted].
Yellow Cab Co. of Phoenix, Inc. v. Green 494 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Yellow Cab Co. of Phoenix, Inc. v. Green 494 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Kwik-Teck, Inc. v. Esper 489 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1971
Kwik-Teck, Inc. v. Esper 489 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1971
we said that “[i]f an instruction is misleading to the jury and prejudices the appellant’s rights, then the giving of that instruction constitutes reversible error.
Davis v. Waters 436 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1968
Davis v. Waters 436 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1968

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by