Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Young Mines Co. v. Blackburn, 196 P. 167.

25 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
19 STATE V. SMITH Opinion of the Court were clarified by witness testimony ()).
Risser v. Pinewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Risser v. Pinewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
196 P. 167, 169 (1921) (order reinstating case after order of dismissal was the same as order vacating the dismissal and appealable as special order made after judgment).
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
We have upheld the use of maps and diagrams to illustrate testimony even when they are not absolutely correct, “but [are] sufficiently so to enable the jury or the court to understand better the statements of the witness.” , 196 P. 167, 170 (1921)
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, , (grant of motion for reconsideration from entry of summary judgment is appealable); -03 , 196 P. 167, 169 (1921) (order reinstating case after being dismissed for lack of prosecution is the same as an order vacating an order of dismissal, and has the same effect as the reversal of a judgment and is appealable); M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
Young Mines Co., , 196 P. 167 (1921).
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Although an order vacating an order of dismissal is *99 appealable, Young Mines Co., , 196 P. 167 (1921), , the unusual posture of this case justified prompt appellate intervention.
Reed v. Real Detective Publishing Co. 162 P.2d 133 Ariz. 1945
Reed v. Real Detective Publishing Co. 162 P.2d 133 Ariz. 1945
689 , and Young Mines Co., Ltd., v. Blackburn, , 196 Pac.
The W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Spencer 118 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1941
The W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Spencer 118 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1941
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sorrells 69 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1937
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sorrells 69 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1937
399 ; Young Mines Company, limited, v. Blackburn, , 196 Pac.
Rutledge v. State 15 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1932
Rutledge v. State 15 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1932
The court has had a somewhat similar question before it in the case of Young Mines Company, Ltd., v. Blackburn, , 196 Pac.
Paul v. Paul 238 P. 399 Ariz. 1925
Paul v. Paul 238 P. 399 Ariz. 1925
Young Mines Co., Ltd., v. Blackburn, Pac.
Salt River Valley Water Users' As'n v. Wheeler 236 P. 1108 Ariz. 1925
Salt River Valley Water Users' As'n v. Wheeler 236 P. 1108 Ariz. 1925
Appellant makes particular complaint of this instruction on account of the use of the word “sole” before the word “negligence.” The use of the word “solely,” in an instruction somewhat similar to this, was discussed at length in the case of Young Mines Co., Ltd., v. Blackburn, , 196 Pac.
Verde Combination Copper Co. v. Reito 198 P. 462 Ariz. 1921