Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stone, 452 P.2d 513.

41 citing documents.

Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State 266 P.3d 349 Ariz. 2011
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
we implied, without deciding, that filing a claim for damages is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a suit against the state for negligence.
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See Rule 61, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 637 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1981
Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 637 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1981
Although this court has previously declined to express an opinion on the rule, , and supplemental opinion, 452 P.2d at 518 , the Court of Appeals has cited with approval the subsequent marriage exclusionary rule.
Dassinger v. Oden 606 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Dassinger v. Oden 606 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Sanchez 579 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Sanchez 579 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Siegrist v. Carrillo 540 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1975
Siegrist v. Carrillo 540 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1975
Arizona Constitution, Art. 6, § *222 27, 1 A.R.S.
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
as authority for admitting the accident report into evidence.
State v. Brooks 534 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Brooks 534 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
McKee v. Conkle 532 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
McKee v. Conkle 532 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Killingsworth v. Nottingham 501 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Killingsworth v. Nottingham 501 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Black 494 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Black 494 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
e state, county, municipality, or any body politic, and copies thereof certified under the hand and seal of the public officer having custody of such records', shall be received in evidence as prima facie evidence of'the facts therein stated.” Under Rule 44(a), just cited, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that public records “are those required to be kept by a specific statute.”
Keck v. Kelley 492 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Keck v. Kelley 492 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
the report was admissible in evidence.
Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
(4) “It was Prejudicial Error to Admit Into Evidence the Police Report.” , this Court held that accident reports, made pursuant to statutory duty (A.R.S.
Spettigue v. Arizona Highway Commission 483 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Spettigue v. Arizona Highway Commission 483 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
our Supreme Court held the traffic accident report is admissible in evidence.
State v. Williams 472 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Williams 472 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The Arizona Supreme Court, , has construed these two statutes and has held that subsequent to 1963, a claim must be filed to the appropriate government agency before suit is filed in actions on contract and negligence.
State v. Smith 469 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Smith 469 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
and supplemental opinion .
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Our Supreme Court refrained from a , and its supplemental opinion, , filed 14 May, 1969.
Ledbetter v. Savittieri 455 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Ledbetter v. Savittieri 455 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
We believe that, under the established law of this jurisdiction, , the statute is not retroactive.