Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wright v. Young, 176 P. 583.

34 citing documents.

King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 24, at 67; , 176 P. 583 (1918); Bowen v. Watz, 5 Ariz.App.
Bogard G.M.C. Co. v. Henley 374 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1962
Bogard G.M.C. Co. v. Henley 374 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1962
Interstate Fidelity B. & L. Ass’n v. Hollis, , ; , 176 P. 583 ; , 185 P. 359 ; , 32 P. 265 .” The bare possibility that an accident happened in the manner claimed by plaintiff is insufficient cause to submit the case for decision of the jury.
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
Murillo v. Hernandez 281 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1955
Murillo v. Hernandez 281 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1955
Corn v. Branche 249 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1952
Corn v. Branche 249 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1952
176 P. 583 , in its decision.
Rogers v. Greer 219 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1950
Rogers v. Greer 219 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1950
This court has repeatedly held an express parol trust in land to be within the statute of frauds, , 176 P. 583 ; , 245 P. 360 .
Anderson v. Artesia Inv. Co. 188 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1948
Anderson v. Artesia Inv. Co. 188 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1948
3 , 283 P. 287 ; , 251 P. 446 ; , 205 P. 587 ; that evidence will be taken in the strongest manner in favor of the appellee and in support of the court’s findings, , ; and that a judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it, , 176 P. 583 ; Welker & , 255 P. 991 ; , .
Ruth v. Rhodes 185 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1947
Ruth v. Rhodes 185 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1947
While a verdict resulting from mistake, passion or prejudice will be set aside ( , 176 P. 583 ), it can hardly be said that the verdict for $7500 in the case at bar for the permanent injuries here resulting to a 16-year-old boy is devoid of reason and the result of impassioned and prejudiced minds.
Kenton v. Wood 107 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1940
Kenton v. Wood 107 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1940
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. France 94 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1939
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. France 94 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1939
Collins v. Collins 52 P.2d 1169 Ariz. 1935
Collins v. Collins 52 P.2d 1169 Ariz. 1935
But it is urged by plaintiff that the deed of 1908 sets up a valuable consideration and, such being the case, may not be impeached by parol evidence, , 176 Pac.
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. of Mexico v. White 26 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1933
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. of Mexico v. White 26 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1933
Inter-State Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hollis 17 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1933
Inter-State Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hollis 17 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1933
MacRae v. MacRae 294 P. 280 Ariz. 1930
MacRae v. MacRae 294 P. 280 Ariz. 1930
Mineral Basin Copper Co. v. Standish 250 P. 364 Ariz. 1926
Mineral Basin Copper Co. v. Standish 250 P. 364 Ariz. 1926
Calumet v. Gardner 187 P. 563 Ariz. 1920
Farish v. Beebe 179 P. 51 Ariz. 1919