Cited by

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

83 citing documents.

Collins v. Riverside Amusement Park Co. 145 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1944
Not only is it the duty of the owners of bathing resorts to be prepared to rescue those who *145 may get into danger while in bathing, but it is their duty to act with promptness, and make every reasonable effort to search for, and, if possible, recover those who are known to be missing.” , 199 Pac.
Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington 137 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1943
Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington 137 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1943
Canion v. Southern Pacific Co. 80 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1938
Canion v. Southern Pacific Co. 80 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1938
Illinois Bankers' Life Assn. v. Theodore 34 P.2d 423 Ariz. 1934
Illinois Bankers' Life Assn. v. Theodore 34 P.2d 423 Ariz. 1934
uld justify a reasonable man in discrediting the statement of a witness, the jury may refuse to believe it, even though it is not directly challenged, but they may not arbitrarily reject uncontradicted evidence when nothing intrinsic in the evidence itself or extrinsic in the circumstances of the case casts suspicion thereon.” , 199 Pac.
City of Phoenix v. Mayfield 20 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1933
City of Phoenix v. Mayfield 20 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1933
Southern Pacific Co. v. Shults 290 P. 152 Ariz. 1930
Southern Pacific Co. v. Shults 290 P. 152 Ariz. 1930
Counsel for appellee insists that this instruction is not a correct statement of the law as it exists in Arizona, , 199 Pac.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Fisher 274 P. 779 Ariz. 1929
Southern Pacific Co. v. Fisher 274 P. 779 Ariz. 1929
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Berry 250 P. 356 Ariz. 1926
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Berry 250 P. 356 Ariz. 1926
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gutierrez 249 P. 67 Ariz. 1926
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gutierrez 249 P. 67 Ariz. 1926
Arizona Eastern R.R. Co. v. Cox 233 P. 1102 Ariz. 1925
Arizona Eastern R.R. Co. v. Cox 233 P. 1102 Ariz. 1925
Defendant argues that, , 199 Pac.
Crozier v. Noriega 233 P. 1104 Ariz. 1925
Crozier v. Noriega 233 P. 1104 Ariz. 1925
As w;as said by Mr. Justice BAKES, speaking for the court, , at page 508, 199 Pac.
Calumet & Arizona Mining Co. v. Winters 219 P. 585 Ariz. 1923
Calumet & Arizona Mining Co. v. Winters 219 P. 585 Ariz. 1923
As was said by Mr. Justice BAKER, , at page 508, 199 Pac.
Hines v. Gale 213 P. 395 Ariz. 1923
Hines v. Gale 213 P. 395 Ariz. 1923
A verdict will not be directed in a case where the evidence is conflicting or where on all of the facts and circumstances proven there is room for fair and sensible men to differ in their conclusions.” , 199 Pac.
Morenci Southern Railway Co. v. Monsour 206 P. 589 Ariz. 1922
Morenci Southern Railway Co. v. Monsour 206 P. 589 Ariz. 1922
Varela v. Reid 204 P. 1017 Ariz. 1922
Varela v. Reid 204 P. 1017 Ariz. 1922
Marchese v. Metheny 203 P. 567 Ariz. 1922
Wiser v. Copeland 203 P. 565 Ariz. 1922
Wiser v. Copeland 203 P. 565 Ariz. 1922
88 , and *329 , 199 Pac.
Followed Marchese v. Metheny 203 P. 567 Ariz. 1922