Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bryant v. Thunderbird Academy, 439 P.2d 818.

50 citing documents.

Fleck v. Antti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fleck v. Antti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(); see also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B) (requiring the appellant to order and provide transcripts of the trial court proceedings if he intends to argue that a “judgment, finding or conclusion[] is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence”).
Thomas v. Njie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thomas v. Njie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Mustonen’s Estate, 130 Ariz. at 284 (); ¶ 13 (App. 2014).
Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
As a result, “[i]n the absence of the record, an appellate court will presume that the evidence at a trial was sufficient to sustain a finding, the verdict, or a charge to the jury.” ¶ 15
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(“In the absence of the record, an appellate court will presume that the evidence at a trial was sufficient to sustain a finding, the verdict, or a charge to the jury.”).
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
Rapp v. Olivo 718 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Rapp v. Olivo 718 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Fletcher v. Fletcher 671 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Auman v. Auman 653 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1982
Auman v. Auman 653 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1982
Gamburg v. Cooper 642 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Gamburg v. Cooper 642 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Since appellants have failed to provide us with a transcript of the trial, we presume the evidence adduced at trial supports the judgment of the trial court, , Walker v. Walker, *547 18 Ariz.App.
Estate of Mustonen v. Schroeder 635 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Estate of Mustonen v. Schroeder 635 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
While one is not bound to anticipate the negligence of another, “* * * it is essential that the risk or danger shall have been known to and appreciated by plaintiff or that it shall have been so obvious that it must be taken to have been known or comprehended.” -50 , -21 (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
to invoke a doctrine of assumed risk “.
Floral Lakes, Inc. v. Patton 513 P.2d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Floral Lakes, Inc. v. Patton 513 P.2d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Co., 11 Ariz.App.
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
our Supreme Court discussed the matter of assumption of risk and stated: “To invoke the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk, it is essential that the risk or danger shall have been known to and appreciated by plaintiff or that it shall have been so obvious that it must be taken to have been kno
Walker v. Walker 500 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walker v. Walker 500 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 479 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1970
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 479 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1970
We have said the test of negligence is whether in the light of existing dangers one is exercising ordinary care for his own safety, , .
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Graybar Electric Company v. Lowe 462 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Graybar Electric Company v. Lowe 462 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Campbell v. Campbell, 9 Ariz.App.
Campbell v. Campbell 454 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Campbell v. Campbell 454 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Orlando *559 v. Northcutt, supra
Zakroff v. May 443 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Zakroff v. May 443 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
P.2d 818 (4/17/68); O’Brien v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 319 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1963); Reconstruction Finance Corp. of Washington, D. C. v. Herring, 110 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1940).