DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Esquivel v. Nancarrow, 450 P.2d 399.

25 citing documents.

  • Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    701 (allowing lay person to give opinion testimony that is “not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge”); , (“lay witnesses who have had a sufficient opportunity to observe a person may testify as to whether that person appears to be intoxicated”).
  • State v. Lummus 950 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
  • Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
    (3V2 year-old boy struck by a car and killed while run *331 ning behind two older children across a busy, heavily traveled street), where a majority of this court observed that “it would have been better to refuse to give the [sudden appearance] instruction.” Id.
  • Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Overruled Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (similar instruction approved).
  • State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
    see Rule 701, Ariz.R.Evid., 17A A.R.S.
  • Newell v. Town of Oro Valley 789 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Newell v. Town of Oro Valley 789 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    and see State v. Bojorquez, supra.
  • State v. Bojorquez 702 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Bojorquez 702 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    While we do not disagree with the discussion of the point in Fuenning, the fact that it was dicta, the fact that it did not expressly overrule existing case law which rendered such evidence admissible, , and the fact that our supreme court urged caution in the admission of such evidence, lead to the conclusion that no per se rule was intended.
  • Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    However, a driver or a pedestrian, both have the obligation to make such observation as will enable them to see what a person in the exercise of ordinary care could and should have seen under the circumstance then and there existing.” The first two sentences of this instruction may well have been taken from Justice Struckmeyer’s , where he said: “In Arizona the driver of a motor vehicle does not have the duty to anticipate the presence of others unlawfully using the highway except under special
  • Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Morales v. Bencic 467 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    our Supreme Court said that “ * * * lay witnesses [with] sufficient opportunity to observe a person may testify as to whether that person appears to be intoxicated.” (Emphasis added).
  • Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    The instructions are neither “directly contradictory” nor “confusing”
  • Nagle v. Conger 456 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Nagle v. Conger 456 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969