Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Henry v. Mayer, 53 P. 590.

26 citing documents.

Stromberg v. Heirigs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 31 (App. 2014) (“[E]quitable remedies are for the court to decide.”); ¶ 53 (App. 2008) (“[N]o constitutional right to a jury trial exists for actions that were considered equitable at or near the time Arizona’s constitution was adopted.”); (Ariz. Terr.
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 273-74, ¶¶ 53, 57, 196 P.3d at 876-77; 53 P. 590, 593 (Ariz. Terr.
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
53 P. 590, 593 (Ariz.Terr.1898) (“[T]he cause being one of equitable jurisdiction, the court below was not bound to submit any issue of fact to a jury, but, on the contrary, might, in its discretion, have properly refused the request made by the appellee ...
Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. v. Meyer 204 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1949
Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. v. Meyer 204 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1949
108 P. 460 ; , 53 P. 590 .
C.I.T. Corporation v. First Nat. Bank 266 P. 6 Ariz. 1928
C.I.T. Corporation v. First Nat. Bank 266 P. 6 Ariz. 1928
Miller v. Thompson 229 P. 696 Ariz. 1924
Donahue v. Babbitt 227 P. 995 Ariz. 1924
Donahue v. Babbitt 227 P. 995 Ariz. 1924
’ ’ ’ In June, 1898, , 53 Pac.
Brown v. Greer 141 P. 841 Ariz. 1914
Brown v. Greer 141 P. 841 Ariz. 1914
Miles v. Franz Lumber Co. 130 P. 1112 Ariz. 1913
Miles v. Franz Lumber Co. 130 P. 1112 Ariz. 1913
Nugent v. Stofella 84 P. 910 Ariz. 1906
Nugent v. Stofella 84 P. 910 Ariz. 1906
W. H. Taggart Mercantile Co. v. Clack 71 P. 925 Ariz. 1903
W. H. Taggart Mercantile Co. v. Clack 71 P. 925 Ariz. 1903
Ct. 971, 41 L. Ed. 113 ; , 53 Pac.
Willard v. Carrigan 68 P. 538 Ariz. 1902
Willard v. Carrigan 68 P. 538 Ariz. 1902
Again: “The findings of the trial court upon controverted questions of fact cannot be deemed erroneous, except for very forcible reasons.” , 53 Pac.
Miller v. Miller 64 P. 415 Ariz. 1901
Miller v. Miller 64 P. 415 Ariz. 1901
469 , said: “The evidence upon this point being conflicting, and the trial court having found for the plaintiff, we cannot, of course, disturb this finding.” Again, , 53 Pac.
Goldman v. Shultz 64 P. 425 Ariz. 1901
Goldman v. Shultz 64 P. 425 Ariz. 1901