DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morris v. State, 9 P.2d 407.

14 citing documents.

  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
    Therefore, even assuming that 2 –46 (1932), mentioned acquiescence in the location of a boundary even prior to Hein, though each respective court decided the issue in the context of adverse possession.
  • Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    -46 , (citing 2 C.J. 141 § 245) (ellipses in original).
  • Inch v. McPherson 859 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, -39 , -67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & -59 , -59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); -46 , (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Opportunities v. 1-10 Industrial Park Dev., , (holding land beyond boundary line up to a fixed, visible boundary line based on mistake); Rorebeck, 1 Ariz
  • Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Chandler v. Jackson 714 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Kay v. Biggs 475 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
    And, , where there had occurred a mistake as to boundary lines between abutting properties, and the- property was being claimed by adverse possession, it was held that “ * * * In all cases the intention and not the mistake is the test by which the character of the possession is determined; it being prima
  • Higginbotham v. Kuehn 424 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1967
    controls the disposition of this appeal.
  • Wise v. Knapp 412 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    Rorebeck v. Criste, supra.
  • Rorebeck v. Criste 398 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery of Los Angeles 331 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1958
    Appellant may have been mistaken as to its rights under the certificate, but “ ‘the intention and not the mistake is the test by which the character of the possession is determined, * * ” , .
  • Cook v. Stevens 77 P.2d 1100 Ariz. 1938