Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heimke v. Munoz, 470 P.2d 107.

88 citing documents.

Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
–98 (1967) (discussing duty of motorist, based on a traffic statute, to maintain a reasonable speed to avoid collisions with other motorists), (discussing duty of motorist, based on a traffic statute, to avoid a collision by yielding the right- of-way).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 117 P.3d 786 Ariz. 2005
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins Ariz. 2005
Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau Ins Ariz. 2005
See Ariz. Const. art. 18, §§ 4, 5; -30, -11 (1970).
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 117 P.3d 786 Ariz. 2005
See Ariz. Const, art. 18, §§ 4, 5; -30 , -11 (1970).
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
(“This Court by a long line of decisions under a variety of circumstances has held that the purpose of Article 18, § 5 was to modify the common law by making the jury rather than the court the sole arbiter of the existence or nonexistence of contributory negligence.
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Williams II, 188 Ariz. at 260, 934 P.2d at 1352; (art. XVIII, § 5 gives a jury not only “the right to determine the facts, but to apply or not, as the jury sees fit, the law of contributory negligence 11 as a defense.”), overruled or disapproved on other grounds by Jurek v. Jurek
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
(Article 18, section 5 gives the jury not only “the right to determine the facts, but to apply or not, as the jury sees fit, the law of contributory negligence as a defense.”).
Estes v. Tripson 932 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Estes v. Tripson 932 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
to apply or not, as the jury sees fit, the law of contributory negligence as a defense.”
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Freight System, Inc., , , Veg odsky v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App.
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Schwab v. Matley 793 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1990
Schwab v. Matley 793 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1990
Gunnerson v. Gunnerson 788 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gunnerson v. Gunnerson 788 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
-71 , -45 (1962) (instruction that jury “must” find for defendant if it finds that the facts establish contributory negligence would be unconstitutional); , (jury should be instructed on law of contributory negligence but cannot be peremptorily required to follow the instruction); , (court cannot find contributory negligence or assumption of the risk as a matter of law).
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Cress, 22 Ariz.App.
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
(“the trial court cannot direct a verdict even though the plaintiff’s negligence is undisputed, and the trial court must not, directly or indirectly, tell the jury that it shall return a verdict compatible with the law of contributory negligence as declared by the court”).
Crawford v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 698 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Crawford v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 698 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Article 18, § 5 of our constitution provides that “[t]he defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” , where the supreme court noted: “This Court by a long line of decisions under a variety of circumstances has held that the purpose of Article 18, § 5 was to modify the common law by making the jury rather than the court the sole arbiter of the existence or non-existence of contrib
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
As far as injuries to the person is concerned, Jurek v. Jurek, supra, , that the negligence of one spouse is imputed to the other.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
“Clearly and unmistakably, the defense of contributory negligence does not defeat a plaintiff’s recovery unless the jury says it shall.”
Jurek v. Jurek 606 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1980
Jurek v. Jurek 606 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1980
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Silvestri v. Hurlburt, 26 Ariz.App.
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976