Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite O'DONNELL v. Maves, 436 P.2d 577.

43 citing documents.

Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Brookover v. Roberts Enterprises Inc. 156 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Brookover v. Roberts Enterprises Inc. 156 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hosp., , , 1183 (App.1983) (citing O’ , ).
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
*301 It has been held that the trier of fact is bound to believe the uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of a totally disinterested witness “where nothing casts suspicion on it.” O’ , Ft.
Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. v. Maricopa County 782 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1989
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Mchave Farms, , O’Donnell v. Maves, *233
McWain v. Tucson General Hosp. 670 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
McWain v. Tucson General Hosp. 670 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Jackson v. HH Robertson Co., Inc. 574 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1978
Jackson v. HH Robertson Co., Inc. 574 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1978
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
See, also, O’-32 , -81 (1968).
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
TUCSON GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Larsen 506 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
TUCSON GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Larsen 506 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
An excellent summary of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is set out in O’ , where our Supreme Court, in essence, said that the doctrine is essentially a rule of circumstantial evidence where a jury in a negligence case is permitted but not required to draw an inference of negligence from the happening of an accident of a kind which experience has shown does not normally
Blair v. Saguaro Lake Development Co. 495 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Blair v. Saguaro Lake Development Co. 495 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'DONNELL v. Maves 492 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
O'DONNELL v. Maves 492 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
That appeal, resulted in a reversal and a remand for a second trial becaúse of an erroneous jury instruction, O’ , .
Conner v. Brkich 481 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Conner v. Brkich 481 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Towers v. Johnson 465 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Towers v. Johnson 465 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Our Supreme Court recently stated: “We have held that res ipsa loquitur gives rise to an inference, not a presumption.” O’
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
In its opinion in O’ , our Supreme Court set forth the conditions which must appear before the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied.
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
We are not here concerned with jury instructions, as was the problem in O’ , (Jan.