Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Southwest Cotton Co. v. Ryan, 199 P. 124.

69 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs 474 P.3d 667 Ariz. 2020
Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs 474 P.3d 667 Ariz. 2020
); ¶ 24 n.9 (App. 2013).
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
199 P. 124, 126-27 (1921).
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper 538 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1975
Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper 538 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1975
199 P. 124 (1921), we held: “After deciding that the defendant was liable, the jury had next to say to what extent, and in determining this there are certain ‘principles of law’ by which it should have been guided, and without its being informed what they are we have no way of knowing whether the verdict was arrived
Palicka v. Ruth Fisher Sch. Dist. No. 90 of Maricopa County 473 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Palicka v. Ruth Fisher Sch. Dist. No. 90 of Maricopa County 473 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Gorski v. JC Penney Company 442 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1968
Gorski v. JC Penney Company 442 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1968
414: * * ‘Upon the ground of public policy, the , courts have almost universally agreed upon the rule that no affidavit, deposition, or other sworn statement of a juror will be received to impeach the verdict, or to explain it, * * * or that they agreed on their verdict by average, or by lot.’ * * * ” , 199 P. 124 .
City of Phoenix v. Wade 428 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
City of Phoenix v. Wade 428 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
194 P. 958 (1921), , 199 P. 124 (1921).
Board of Trustees Eloy Elemen. Sch. Dist. v. McEwen 430 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Board of Trustees Eloy Elemen. Sch. Dist. v. McEwen 430 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Swinehart v. Baker 429 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Swinehart v. Baker 429 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
199 P. 124 (1921); , 131 P. 668 (1913).
State v. Mejia 399 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1965
State v. Mejia 399 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1965
Hall v. Delvat 389 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1964
Hall v. Delvat 389 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1964
131 P. 668 ; , 199 P. 124 ; , .
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co. 370 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1962
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co. 370 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1962
236 P. 704 ; , 199 P. 124 .
Feffer v. Bowman 365 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1961
Feffer v. Bowman 365 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1961
llege: “ * • * * First, the relation of employer and employee; second, the hazardous character of the employment; third, an injury caused by an accident while engaged in such employment; fourth, that the accident was .due to a condition or conditions of the occupation or employment; and, fifth, that the injury was not caused by the negligence of the plaintiff.” Southwest Cotton Co. v. Ryan, 1921, , 199 P. 124, 128 .
Stallcup v. Coscarart 282 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1955
Stallcup v. Coscarart 282 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1955
199 P. 124 ; , ; Riser v. Herr, 187 Okl.
Tipton v. Burson 238 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1951
Tipton v. Burson 238 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1951
t’s responsibility to instruct the jury on all phases of the law applicable to various fact situations developed during the course of the trial, and the court in the instant case apparently believed there was sufficient evidence adduced on the question of punitive damages for this issue to go to the jury.” , 199 P. 124 , wherein it was held that it was the duty of the trial court to charge on all vital issues made by the pleadings and contested in the evidence although not requested by either pa
Alger v. Brighter Days Mining Corp. 160 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1945
Alger v. Brighter Days Mining Corp. 160 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1945
Starkweather v. Conner, supra; , 199 Pac.
Wilson v. Wiggins 94 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1939
Wilson v. Wiggins 94 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1939
Hammels v. Britten 85 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1939
Hammels v. Britten 85 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1939
Central Arizona Light & Power Co. v. Bell 64 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1937
Central Arizona Light & Power Co. v. Bell 64 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1937
Lillywhite v. Coleman 52 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1935
Lillywhite v. Coleman 52 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1935
Kinman v. Grousky 49 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1935
Kinman v. Grousky 49 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1935
Brooks v. McDevitt 11 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1932
Brooks v. McDevitt 11 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1932
668 ; Southwest Cotton Co. v. Ryanf , 199 Pac.
Selaster v. Simmons 7 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1932
Selaster v. Simmons 7 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1932
Grasty v. Sabin 259 P. 1049 Ariz. 1927
Grasty v. Sabin 259 P. 1049 Ariz. 1927
We have held that negligence of the plaintiff that will defeat him means his “sole negligence.” , 199 Pac.
Arizona Cotton Oil Co. v. Thompson 245 P. 673 Ariz. 1926