DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pass v. Stephens, 198 P. 712.

34 citing documents.

  • Newman v. Hess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Newman v. Hess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Paulden v. Big Chino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Paulden v. Big Chino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Steelman v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Steelman v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
  • Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
    The court cited as analogous a very early decision by this court in which incompetency, for purposes of invalidating a testamentary instrument, required that the grantor be “incapable of understanding in a reasonable degree and knowing the consequences of the instrument he executes.” 137 Ariz. at 216 , 669 P.2d at 993 ( , 198 P. 712, 715 (1921)).
  • Feitler v. LaChance 883 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Feitler v. LaChance 883 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad 694 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad 694 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Nelson v. Nelson 669 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Nelson v. Nelson 669 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    To have that effect the mental power must be so far deteriorated or destroyed that the grantor is incapable ' of understanding in a reasonable degree and knowing the consequences of the instrument he executes.” , 198 P. 712 (1921).
  • Matter of Estate of Stephens 574 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Matter of Estate of Stephens 574 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    In Pass v. Stephens, the Arizona Supreme Court said: “Every clause, and even every word, should, when possible, have assigned to it some meaning.” at 466 , 198 P. 712 at 714 (1921).
  • Hendricks v. Simper 539 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Hendricks v. Simper 539 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Thus, P. 712 (1921) the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “It is well settled that mere mental weakness in the grantor does not invalidate a deed.
  • Stewart v. Woodruff 505 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Stewart v. Woodruff 505 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    47 , , 198 P. 712 (1921).
  • Young v. Lujan 461 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Young v. Lujan 461 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    198 P. 712 (1921) ; , , 160 A.L.R.
  • Brewer v. Peterson 453 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Brewer v. Peterson 453 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    The test of undue influence insofar as the execution of a deed is concerned has been stated by our Supreme Court to be: “Undue influence which will justify the setting aside of an executed deed must have been of such a nature as to deprive the grantor of his free agency, and thus to render his act more the offspring of the will of another than of his own will.” , 198 P. 712, 716 (1921).
  • State v. Coerver 412 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Coerver 412 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1966
    198 P. 712 (1921); Wise v. Watts, 239 F. 207 , (9th Cir.) cert denied, 244 U.S. 661 , 37 S.Ct.
  • Corn v. Branche 249 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1952
  • Corn v. Branche 249 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1952
  • Amado v. Aguirre 161 P.2d 117 Ariz. 1945
  • Amado v. Aguirre 161 P.2d 117 Ariz. 1945
  • Van Hagen v. Newton 110 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1941
  • Van Hagen v. Newton 110 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1941
  • Shornick v. Shornick 220 P. 397 Ariz. 1923
  • Shornick v. Shornick 220 P. 397 Ariz. 1923