Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miles v. Wright, 194 P. 88.

37 citing documents.

Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. 2025
Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. 2025
Inc. v. Edais Eng’g Inc., ¶ 18 n.1 (2022); (“A sheriff may not be held for punitive damages for the acts of his deputy unless he has directed, participated in, acquiesced or ratified those acts.” (emphasis added)); (“It is necessary, therefore, in an action against the sheriff, as such, for damages for a false imprisonment by his deputy, that the complaint show by proper allegations that the deputy’s act was an official act.”); A.R.S.
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-43, -98 (App. 1984); -16 (1953); 194 P. 88, 90 (1920)
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
§ 38-101(3)); , 194 P. 88 (1920) (holding that for purposes of liability under an official bond, “official acts” of deputy sheriff are those done under color and by virtue of his office).
Cochise County v. Helm 635 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Smitherman v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR CO. OF PIMA 433 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1967
Smitherman v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR CO. OF PIMA 433 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1967
162 , the court held that to constitute a trespass within the meaning of the exception there must be an “affirmative act.” , , we said: “The courts of Texas (from which state our venue statutes were principally taken, , 194 P. 88 , 12 A.L.R.
Massengill v. Superior Court 416 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Massengill v. Superior Court 416 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Brown v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Brown v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
The Arizona venue statute was principally taken from Texas, , 194 P. 88, 91 , 12 A.L.R.
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Ellsworth v. Layton 397 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1964
Ellsworth v. Layton 397 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1964
Pride v. Superior Court 348 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1960
Pride v. Superior Court 348 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1960
When the foundation of the action is a crime, offense or trespass for which an action in damages may lie, the action may be brought in the county in which the crime, offense or trespass was committed or in the county in which the defendant or any of the several defendants reside or may be found, * * In interpreting this subsection we held, , 194 P. 88 , 12 A.L.R.
Tribolet v. Fowler 266 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1954
Tribolet v. Fowler 266 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1954
have contracted in writing to perform an obligation in one county, may be sued in such county or where they reside.” To determine whether the action was properly brought in the Pinal County court, in the absence of facts alleged which are not in the bounds of the above statute and Section 21-102 subsequently quoted herein, the court must look to the complaint to determine venue, , 194 P. 88 , 12 A.L.R.
Santa Cruz Ranch v. Superior Court 258 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1953
Santa Cruz Ranch v. Superior Court 258 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1953
Shaw v. Greer 194 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1948
Shaw v. Greer 194 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1948
At the instance of the sureties the complaint as to them was dismissed on the ground that the complaint on its face showed that the *225 , 194 P. 88 , 12 A.L.R.
Chaudoin v. Fuller 192 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1948
Chaudoin v. Fuller 192 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1948
* * * ” , 194 P. 88 , 12 A.L.R.
Russell v. Glascow 162 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1945
Russell v. Glascow 162 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1945
The bonds of deputies, clerks or employees, unless otherwise provided by law, shall be approved by the appointing power.” , 194 Pac.
Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller 157 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1945
Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller 157 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1945
Truog v. American Bonding Co. of Baltimore 107 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1940
Truog v. American Bonding Co. of Baltimore 107 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1940
Weidler v. Arizona Power Co. 7 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1932
Weidler v. Arizona Power Co. 7 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1932
They have cited no case supporting their position upon anything like a similar state of facts, but rely rather upon authorities which discuss the general principles determining what are and what are not official acts, , 12 A. L. R. 970, 194 Pac.
Argetakis v. State 212 P. 372 Ariz. 1923
Argetakis v. State 212 P. 372 Ariz. 1923
869 ; , 12 A. L. R. 970, 194 Pac.