Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Davis v. Boggs, 199 P. 116.

83 citing documents.

Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
199 P. 116, 120 (1921), overruled on other grounds by S. Pac.
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
the court described the heeding presumption as a presumption of due care “founded on a law of nature and has for its motives the fear of pain, maiming and death.” ( , 199 P. 116, 120 (1921)); , (recognizing presumption of due care in products liability case, although presumption rebutted).
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
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
Sheehan v. Pima County 660 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Sheehan v. Pima County 660 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
is founded on a law of nature and has for its motives the fear of pain, maiming and death.” , 199 P. 116, 120 (1921).
Kington v. Camden 507 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Kington v. Camden 507 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
And not only is the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the party’s case against whom the motion is made, but the truth of whatever evidence he has introduced, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, are taken as admitted.” , 199 P. 116, 119 (1921), the court stated: “ .
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
* * * ” In the Robledo case, in support of this holding, , 199 P. 116 , wherein, in passing upon a presumption of due-care instruction, we said: “It is urged that the following instruction, given by the court, was erroneous: “ ‘In the absence of credible evidence on the question of whether plaintiff’s decedent exercised due care in going upon the railroad crossing where he
Konow v. Southern Pacific Company 465 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1970
Konow v. Southern Pacific Company 465 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1970
199 P. 116 (1921), that the duty imposed by this section, though phrased in terms of the “person in charge of a railroad locomotive,” extends equally to the company as well as *389 to the engineer.
Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
199 P. 116 .” The use of the word “cannot” in the previously referred to instruction was re *85 versible error.
Doubek v. Greco 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Doubek v. Greco 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
This is not objectionable as a conclusion.” (Emphasis supplied) , 89 P. 413 (1907) , 199 P. 116 (1921).
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966
Robledo v. Kopp 409 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1965
Robledo v. Kopp 409 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1965
199 P. 116 , we said: "* * * Contributory negligence is a matter of defense, and the plaintiff is not required to prove its absence as a part of his case.
Shell Oil Company v. Collar 407 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1965
Shell Oil Company v. Collar 407 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1965
199 P. 116 , quoting from Menard v. Boston and Maine R. R., 150 Mass. 386 , 23 N.E.
Robledo v. Kopp 401 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Robledo v. Kopp 401 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The Arizona case cited by Appellant on this point, , 199 P. 116 (1921), is in accord with Cannon v. Kemper.
Higgins v. Kittleson 401 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Higgins v. Kittleson 401 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
* * * ” ; 199 P. 116, 119 .
Layton v. Rocha 368 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1962
Petty v. Butane Corp. 362 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1961
Campbell v. Brinson 360 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1961
Campbell v. Brinson 360 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1961
199 P. 116 , 119: “ * * * a verdict will not be directed in a case where the evidence is conflicting or where on all the facts and circumstances proven there is room for fair and sensible men to differ in their conclusions.
Southern Pacific Company v. Cavallo 323 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1958
Southern Pacific Company v. Cavallo 323 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1958
Zancanaro v. Hopper 286 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1955
Zancanaro v. Hopper 286 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1955
City of Phoenix v. Weedon 226 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1950
City of Phoenix v. Weedon 226 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1950
5; , 199 P. 116 , and determined adversely to defendant by the jury.
Valley Transp. System v. Reinartz 197 P.2d 269 Ariz. 1948
Valley Transp. System v. Reinartz 197 P.2d 269 Ariz. 1948
Davis v. Boggs, 1921, , 199 P. 116 ; Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Green, ; ; , .
Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947
Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947
This court since the decision in Davis v. Boggs, 1921, , 199 P. 116 , has adhered to the rule that the question of contributory negligence is in all cases a question of fact and law for the determination of the jury.
Cope v. Southern Pac. Co. 185 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1947
Cope v. Southern Pac. Co. 185 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1947
in the briefs as to the position this court has taken at various times upon the value of positive and negative 'testimony, as where the engineer testified "I blew the whistle and the bell was ringing,” and other witnesses testified “I did not hear the whistle blow or the bell ring.” See Maricopa & Phoenix & , 60 P. 871 ; , 199 P. 116 ; Illinois Bankers’ Life Ass’n v. Theodore, , ; , .
Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc. 166 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1946
Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc. 166 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1946
190 P. 88 ; , 199 P. 116 ; , 204 P. 1017 ; , 206 P. 589 ; , 243 P. 405 .
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hicks 165 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1946
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hicks 165 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1946
Collins v. Riverside Amusement Park Co. 145 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1944