Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. Morrison, 224 P. 822.

31 citing documents.

State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
ime or other, are there any of you who either personally or whose members of your family have at some time or other had jobs that required them to be involved in investigations of accidents or adjusting claims arising out of accidents.” This is alleged to be a comment on the fact of insurance being mentioned to the jury, a , 224 P. 822 (1924)
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
224 P. 822 (1924); , ; , , ; , ; E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland, 105 Ariz
Hastings v. Thurston 413 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1966
Hastings v. Thurston 413 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1966
State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts 398 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1965
State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts 398 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1965
224 P. 822 , hold that the insurance company is not to be involved in an auto accident case and that information concerning its relations with the insured is unavailable even under Rule 26.
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
Sisk v. Ball 371 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1962
224 P. 822 (1924); Annot.
Di Pietruntonio v. Superior Court 327 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1958
Di Pietruntonio v. Superior Court 327 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1958
224 P. 822, 825 , that: “* * * The fact that the defendant carried casualty insurance as a protection from loss in case of accident is a matter in which neither the jury nor the plaintiff had any concern whatever.
Evans v. Mason 308 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1957
Evans v. Mason 308 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1957
In this regard appellant argues that such inquiry on voir dire examination of jurors is conduct exactly analogous to that condemned by the rule which forbids reference to the fact that a defendant carries liability insurance, , ; , 224 P. 822 .
Scott v. Scott 252 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1953
Scott v. Scott 252 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1953
The rule employed by the court in Calumet & , 187 P. 563 ; , 209 P. 280 , , 224 P. 822 , was that questions of negligence and contributory negligence are for the courts only when the facts are undisputed and lead to but one conclusion.
Dunipace v. Martin 242 P.2d 543 Ariz. 1952
Dunipace v. Martin 242 P.2d 543 Ariz. 1952
224 P. 822, 825 , is not in point.
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinson 238 P.2d 937 Ariz. 1951
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinson 238 P.2d 937 Ariz. 1951
These cases are Blue Bar Taxicab & , 216 P. 246 ; , 224 P. 822 ; , ; Consolidated Motors, Inc., v. Ketcham, , .
Ray v. Tucson Medical Center 230 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1951
Ray v. Tucson Medical Center 230 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1951
Western Truck Lines, Ltd. v. Berry 87 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1939
Western Truck Lines, Ltd. v. Berry 87 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1939
All lawyers know the rule in regard to such evidence, and they must not expect the court to establish a rule, and then wink at its violation.” , 224 Pac.
Consolidated Motors, Inc. v. Ketcham 66 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1937
Consolidated Motors, Inc. v. Ketcham 66 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1937
Salt River Valley Water Users' As'n v. Wheeler 236 P. 1108 Ariz. 1925
Salt River Valley Water Users' As'n v. Wheeler 236 P. 1108 Ariz. 1925
Gazette Printing & Publishing Co. v. Suits 233 P. 595 Ariz. 1925
Gazette Printing & Publishing Co. v. Suits 233 P. 595 Ariz. 1925
nt, to the end of protecting the safety of employees in such employment.’ These expressions are admonitions to the employer that the extent of his immunity from liability to the employee for injury or death depends Upon a strict observance of the slogan ‘safety first,’ by the application to his business of every possible means to prevent accidents.” See, also, , 224 Pac.
Gazette Printing & Publishing Co. v. Suits 226 P. 542 Ariz. 1924