Betancourt v. Logia Suprema, Etc., 88 P.2d 83 (Ariz. 1939). · Go Syfert
Search
Betancourt v. Logia Suprema, Etc., 88 P.2d 83 (Ariz. 1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stant v. City of Maricopa Employee Merit Board (arizctapp, 2014-02-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1939 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1939 1982 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stant v. City of Maricopa Employee Merit Board
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Council (Harvey), 211 Ariz. 224, ¶ 30 , 119 P.3d 1027, 1033 (2005); accord Juarez, 211 Ariz. 219, ¶¶ 9-10 , 119 P.3d at 1024; City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240, 245 , 88 P.2d 83, 85 (1939) (recognizing “[t]he board ... is bound to act in accordance with the ordinance which created it, and the rules and regulations which it has established under such ordinance”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Council (Harvey), 211 Ariz. 224, ¶ 30 , 119 P.3d 1027, 1033 (2005); accord Juarez, 211 Ariz. 219, ¶¶ 9-10 , 119 P.3d at 1024; City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240, 245 , 88 P.2d 83, 85 (1939) (recognizing “[t]he board . . . is bound to act in accordance with the ordinance which created it, and the rules and regulations which it has established under such ordinance”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleming v. Pima County (2×)
Ariz. · 1984 · confidence medium
City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240, 247 , 88 P.2d 83, 86 (1939).
cited Cited "see" McNeill v. Marberry
Ariz. · 1951 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240 , 88 P.2d 83 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council
Ariz. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240, 246-47 , 88 P.2d 83 , 86 (1939); see also Hamilton v. City of Mesa, 185 Ariz. 420, 424-425 , 916 P.2d 1136, 1140-41 (App.1996); Deuel v. Ariz. State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 165 Ariz. 524, 526-27 , 799 P.2d 865, 867-68 (App. 1990) (setting forth due process rights of *228 covered public employees); accord 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (1996) (setting forth federal merit system principles); see generally Daryl Man-hart, Commment, Property and Liberty Limitations on the Dismissal of Arizona Public Employees, 1977 Ariz. St.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Desruisseau v. Cameron
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240 , 88 P.2d 83 (1939).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alfonso Betancourt, and Sccorro Betancourt, a Minor, Enedina Betancourt, a Minor, Armando Betancourt, a Minor, Noemi Betancourt, a Minor, and Esther Betancourt, a Minor, by Alfonso Betancourt, Their Guardian Ad Litem
v.
Logia Suprema De La Alianza Hispano-Americana, a Corporation
Civil No. 3984..
Arizona Supreme Court.
Mar 20, 1939.
88 P.2d 83
Mr. L.J. Cox, for Appellants. Mr. Greg Garcia, for Appellee.
McALISTER, J..
Published

Appellants seek a rehearing upon the ground that they are entitled to judgment for the premiums paid, $3.80, if not for the face of the policy. These premiums were not tendered by appellee prior to the filing of suit to recover on the policy and did not when tendered include the costs appellants had incurred up to that time. This being the situation, judgment for $3.80 should have been rendered in favor *Page 264 of appellants, and this would have carried with it their costs in the superior court. The order entered by this court on February 6, 1939, affirming the action of the trial court in directing a verdict for appellee is modified to this extent.

ROSS, C.J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.