Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Orlando v. Northcutt, 441 P.2d 58.

67 citing documents.

Phoenix Airport Travelodge v. Dolgin 470 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
A party may not always bask in the comfort of presumptions based on a faulty composition of the record having failed to ask that it be supplemented pursuant to Rule 75, 16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure
Nobbe v. Eichenauer Hay Sales, Inc. 466 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Nobbe v. Eichenauer Hay Sales, Inc. 466 P.2d 54 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
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Phoenix Finance Company v. Culley, 7 Ariz.App.
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
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co. 454 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co. 454 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Malinski v. Pember 453 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Malinski v. Pember 453 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In their reply brief, counsel for the plaintiff concedes that their contention that it is fundamental and reversible error to require a jury to find a plaintiff guilty of negligence where it is alleged that the plaintiff violated a statute and acted for the safety of persons or property
Worthington v. Funk 442 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Worthington v. Funk 442 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
For a recent ■case, see Orlando v. Northcutt, Ariz.