Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Sherrill's Estate, 373 P.2d 353.

27 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
See, e.g., In re Sherrill’s Estate, (“The domicile of a person who becomes insane remains where it was established at that time.
Wood v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See In re Sherrill’s Estate, (“That one is under guardianship does not prevent him from performing the acts of which he is in fact capable.”); see also Doe v. Rowe, 156 F. Supp. 2d 35, 55–56 (D. Me. 2001) (“[U]nder any reasonable definition, ‘mental illness’ cannot serve as a proxy for mental incapacity with regards to voting.”).
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See In re Sherrill’s Estate, -44
Passey v. Great Western Associates II 850 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Passey v. Great Western Associates II 850 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
Pima County Public Fiduciary v. Superior Court 546 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Pima County Public Fiduciary v. Superior Court 546 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
§ 36-518(b), relative to voluntary admissions, consideration must be given to In re Sherrill’s Estate, ; , which holds: ‘That one is under guardianship does not prevent him from performing the acts of which he is in fact capable * * *.’ Therefore, if a person under guardianship is capable of making a decision to be admitted to a mental health treatment agency, his guardian must also sign the appointmen
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co. 539 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co. 539 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Arizona State Liquor Board v. Jacobs 511 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Arizona State Liquor Board v. Jacobs 511 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
In re Sherrill’s Estate, , Magma Flood Control District v. Palmer, 4 Ariz.App.
State Personnel Commission v. Webb 500 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Personnel Commission v. Webb 500 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rau v. Rau 432 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Rau v. Rau 432 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
As an appellate court, it is our duty to affirm the judgment of the trial court, when correct, even though the trial court may have stated the wrong reasons for its judgment, In re Sherrill’s Estate, , so long as the judgment is not solely the product of an erroneous legal judgment.
State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
However, we have stated that this court, on appeal, will affirm the judgment of the trial court reaching a correct legal conclusion although for the wrong reasons, , , filed April 6, 1967; , ; In re Sherrill’s Estate, , , and the principle applies to the present issue.
Nicholas v. Giles 426 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1967
Nicholas v. Giles 426 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1967
In re Sherrill’s Estate, , ; , 108 P. 461 , aff’d 233 U.S. 273 , 34 S.Ct.
Magma Flood Control District v. Palmer 418 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Magma Flood Control District v. Palmer 418 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
• In re Sherrill’s Estate
Day v. Estate of Wiswall 381 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1963
Day v. Estate of Wiswall 381 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1963
We will affirm the judgment of the lower court if the result is the only one that could be legally reached, Davis v. Weber, Ariz., although the lower court ruled on different grounds, In re Sherrill’s Estate