DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fornara v. Wolpe, 226 P. 203.

32 citing documents.

  • Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    P. 49(c); -90 (1924) (stating that if a jury “decides issues not submitted to it, its action to that extent is without force or effect”).
  • Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    See, (“patent inconsistency” where “impossible” to find issues in favor of either plaintiffs or defendant and not make award in some amount); -91, 226 P. 203, 204-05 (1924) (defective verdict where recovery amount less than instructed); Piper v. Bear Med.
  • US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶18 P. 203 (1924), P.3d 837 (App. 2002), for her assertion the trial court, rather than the aggrieved party, should bring unresponsive verdicts to the jury’s attention and send the jury back for further deliberation.
  • Olson v. Neale 570 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Olson v. Neale 570 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    In those cases the vendor had either deliberately bypassed the broker, e. g., , , 226 P. 203 (1924); or the action involved a contest between two brokers for the right to a commission, e. g., , 135 P. 724 (1913), , 149 P. 384 (1915)
  • Banner Realty, Inc. v. Turek 546 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1976
  • Banner Realty, Inc. v. Turek 546 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1976
    *64 In addition to the citation of the rule, P. 203 (1924), , 207 P. 1089 (1922)
  • Mohamed v. Robbins 531 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Mohamed v. Robbins 531 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Bowser, supra; , 226 P. 203 (1924).
  • Aritex Land Co. v. Arnold 494 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Aritex Land Co. v. Arnold 494 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    Co., , 298 P. 402 (1931); , 226 P. 203 (1924).
  • Pelayo v. Bell 477 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Pelayo v. Bell 477 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    226 P. 203 (1924), the Arizona Supreme Court held that when a verdict is not responsive to the issues submitted, the court should call it to the jury’s attention and send it back for further deliberation.
  • Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc. 436 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1968
  • Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc. 436 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1968
    226 P. 203 , we said: “ * * * While the pleading and proof are that appellee was given certain terms upon which the property would be leased, yet, if he brought it to the notice of the-person who afterwards purchased it, the-fact that the owners themselves consummated the deal and voluntarily took a. less sum than t
  • Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc. 428 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc. 428 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    comes the purchaser, is entitled to his commissions on the sale, although the latter is effected by the owner of the property, nor can the owner evade his liability to pay the agent his commissions by selling for a sum less than,the price given the agent, when the reduction is made of the owner’s own accord.’ ” , , 226 P. 203 (1924).
  • Bowser v. Sandige 250 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1952
  • Bowser v. Sandige 250 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1952
    226 P. 203 , to the effect that if the broker brought the property to the attention of the purchaser he was entitled to his commission even though the owners themselves consummated the deal.
  • Ward v. Johnson 232 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1951
  • Ward v. Johnson 232 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1951
    Plaintiff contends that it was proper for the trial court to fix the amount of plaintiff’s damages, and cites several cases- which he claims support his contention, , 226 P. 203, 204 .
  • Haymes v. Rogers 222 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1950
  • Haymes v. Rogers 222 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1950
    226 P. 203 ; , ; , 149 P. 384 .
  • Fink v. Williamson 158 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1945
  • Fink v. Williamson 158 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1945
  • Welch v. United Mutual Benefit Ass'n 36 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1934
  • Welch v. United Mutual Benefit Ass'n 36 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1934
    904, 909 , that: “In the absence of a statute permitting it, a court may not render judgment notwithstanding the verdict merely because it deems the verdict unsupported by the evidence.” , 226 Pac.
  • Nardelli v. T. C. Triplett Building Co. 298 P. 402 Ariz. 1931
  • Nardelli v. T. C. Triplett Building Co. 298 P. 402 Ariz. 1931