Cited by

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

88 citing documents.

Silvestri v. Hurlburt 547 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Silvestri v. Hurlburt 547 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
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
If you determine each of these issues in favor of the plaintiff, then you must find for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.” , , and Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App.
W. R. Skousen Contractors, Inc. v. Chatter 536 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
W. R. Skousen Contractors, Inc. v. Chatter 536 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
At oral argument the first question, , problem of the trial court restricting the jury in any manner regarding its determination of contributory negligence, was waived; thus only five questions remain for our consideration.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
DeLozier v. Smith 524 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
DeLozier v. Smith 524 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Rhind v. Kearney 521 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Rhind v. Kearney 521 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
If you find that the plaintiff was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, then you may allow the plaintiff to recover or not recover as you see fit, in your sole discretion.” (Emphasis added) As authority for this instruction, , wherein the court stated: “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 arbit
Shaya v. Petzoldt 515 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Shaya v. Petzoldt 515 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
If you find that the decedent assumed the risk in such a case, the plaintiff should not recover.” (Emphasis added) The courts of this state have approved instructions concerning contributory negligence which include the language that the “verdict must be for the defendant.”
Anderson v. Muniz 515 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Anderson v. Muniz 515 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App.
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
We are aware that the Arizona Supreme Court in a , has also indicated some disenchantment with certain contributory negligence instructions now in vogue in this state.
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Plaintiff responds that the modifi•cation is entirely proper in view of the Arizona Supreme Court’s
Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
which appellants claim has effectively overruled the “should” instruction.
Johnson v. Garnand 501 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Johnson v. Garnand 501 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Wusich, supra.
Hlavaty v. Song 491 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
Hlavaty v. Song 491 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
Article 18, § 5, Arizona Constitution, A.R.S.
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
wherein we held that under Article 18, Section 5, the trial cour.t cannot direct a verdict even though the plaintiff’s contributory negligence [or assumption of risk] is undisputed, and the trial court must not, directly or indirectly, instruct the jury that it must return a verdict compatible w
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
has made it abundantly clear that the question of contributory negligence is solely a jury question.
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
it is clear that the jury still has a right to return a verdict in favor of a plaintiff although the facts conclusively show that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 470 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 470 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
426 , , , filed 27 May 1970.