Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Davis v. Waters, 436 P.2d 906.

28 citing documents.

State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
The first charge required the state to prove that Secord’s control of his vehicle had been impaired or “to the slightest degree affected by his consumption of the intoxicant.” , see also State ex rel.
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
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 795 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1990
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 795 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1990
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
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
[Reversed on other grounds], is directly on point.
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
§ 28-692 , : “We believe it does not follow that merely because a person has been drinking alcoholic beverage that the person was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
and Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Co., *362 , in support of the instruction given.
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
under similar facts: “We believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to create a question of fact for the jury as to whether the defendant was intoxicated to such an extent that the risk of being a guest in her car was an obvious danger.
Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
we held that a person is driving while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor “if his control of his vehicle is to the slightest degree affected by his consumption of the intoxicant.” We believe the arresting officer’s testimony in the instant case sufficiently establishes that th
Chavez v. Pima County 477 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Chavez v. Pima County 477 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
approved instructions very similar to the one granted in this case.
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc. 453 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc. 453 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968