Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heth v. Del Webb's Highway Inn, 429 P.2d 442.

36 citing documents.

Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
11 See Aaron Ferer & Sons, Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 731 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1984); Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 861 F.2d 631 (10th Cir.1988); Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, , Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn, , (setting forth directed verdict standard).
Black v. Perkins 787 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Black v. Perkins 787 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn, , , , American Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Stewart Title & Trust, , 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1064 (Chadbourn rev.1972).
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
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn, , Glowacki v. A.J.
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Since our standard of review upon the grant of a directed verdict is to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed, , Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn, , we must hold that reasonable minds could differ upon whether or not this was a proper offer to return the parties to the status quo under the circumstances and thereby permit rescission of the contract.
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 534 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 534 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
246 , ; Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Parsons v. Smithey 504 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1973
Parsons v. Smithey 504 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1973
evidence will be viewed in a light most favorable to the appellant; whatever competent evidence appellants have introduced, including all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, is assumed to be true; and if the evidence is of such character that reasonable minds may differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury.” Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
The rule is that a directed verdict should not be granted “if the evidence is of such character that reasonable minds may differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom * * Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
El Grande Market No. Two, Inc. v. McAlpin 475 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
El Grande Market No. Two, Inc. v. McAlpin 475 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
s to the court’s instruction number 2 which is as follows: “A greater duty rests upon one engaged in selling merchandise, to discover whether a dangerous condition exists on the premises, than devolves upon his invitee who has a right to assume that the premises are reasonably safe for her use.” , Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Tanner v. Levie 460 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1969
Tanner v. Levie 460 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1969
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Yuma Furniture Company v. Rehwinkel 448 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Yuma Furniture Company v. Rehwinkel 448 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Nosal v. Collett 448 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nosal v. Collett 448 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 447 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1968
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 447 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1968
See, Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn
Myers v. Rollette 439 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1968
Myers v. Rollette 439 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1968
The evidence taken in the strongest light in favor of the defendant, against whom the court ruled, Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn, , , was that although plaintiff and defendant originally agreed that each would contribute a certain amount of cash and would work the deposit as partners, the original agreement was modified.
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
.” Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn, , , filed 22 June 1967.
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
See also, Heth v. Del Webb’s Highway Inn