cross-assignment error in Arizona

11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1945–1990 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co. v. Jonesgreen ariz · 1945 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1956–1968 2 sentences 1968Kahl v. Winfrey, 81 Ariz. 199, 206 , 303 P.2d 526, 530 (1956); Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company v. Jones, 63 Ariz. 535, 543 , 164 P.2d 456, 459 (1945). 1968Kahl v. Winfrey, 81 Ariz. 199, 206 , 303 P.2d 526, 530 (1956); Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company v. Jones, 63 Ariz. 535, 543 , 164 P.2d 456, 459 (1945).	1	2
Kahl v. Winfreygreen ariz · 1956 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1965–1968 2 sentences 1968Kahl v. Winfrey, 81 Ariz. 199, 206 , 303 P.2d 526, 530 (1956); Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company v. Jones, 63 Ariz. 535, 543 , 164 P.2d 456, 459 (1945). 1968Kahl v. Winfrey, 81 Ariz. 199, 206 , 303 P.2d 526, 530 (1956); Gillespie Land and Irrigation Company v. Jones, 63 Ariz. 535, 543 , 164 P.2d 456, 459 (1945).	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Ariz. green ariz · 1955 2 sentences 1969In Rogers the Arizona Supreme Court held that a cross-assignment of error could be made where the purpose was to uphold the order, citing Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Arizona, 79 Ariz. 307 , 289 P.2d 183 (1955); There, the Supreme Court quoted from United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 , 44 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924): “ * * * the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon m 1969In Rogers the Arizona Supreme Court held that a cross-assignment of error could be made where the purpose was to uphold the order, citing Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Arizona, 79 Ariz. 307 , 289 P.2d 183 (1955); There, the Supreme Court quoted from United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 , 44 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924): “ * * * the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon m	2	1966–1969
State v. Condry green ariz · 1977 2 sentences 1990Hence, we do not reach the State's second argument that defendant's sentence was not authorized by law. 114 Ariz. at 501 , 562 P.2d at 381 . 1990Hence, we do not reach the State's second argument that defendant's sentence was not authorized by law. 114 Ariz. at 501 , 562 P.2d at 381 .	1	1990–1990
Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Aetna Investment Corp. green ariz · 1952 2 sentences 1977We granted review because this case involves the need for clarification of certain 554 statements made in Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Aetna Investment Corp., 74 Ariz. 163 , 245 P.2d 423 (1952) regarding corporate employment contracts. 1977We granted review because this case involves the need for clarification of certain 554 statements made in Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Aetna Investment Corp., 74 Ariz. 163 , 245 P.2d 423 (1952) regarding corporate employment contracts.	1	1977–1977
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel green arizctapp · 1969 2 sentences 1970Accord: Wagner v. Coronet Hotel, 10 Ariz.App. 296 , 458 P.2d 390 (1969). 1970Accord: Wagner v. Coronet Hotel, 10 Ariz.App. 296 , 458 P.2d 390 (1969).	1	1970–1970
Aegerter v. Duncan green arizctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1970Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968), on the other hand, held that a cross-appeal would be improper and that the proper method was for the appellee to make a cross-assignment of error. 1970Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968), on the other hand, held that a cross-appeal would be improper and that the proper method was for the appellee to make a cross-assignment of error.	1	1970–1970
United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. American Railway Express Co. green scotus · 1924 2 sentences 1969In Rogers the Arizona Supreme Court held that a cross-assignment of error could be made where the purpose was to uphold the order, citing Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Arizona, 79 Ariz. 307 , 289 P.2d 183 (1955); There, the Supreme Court quoted from United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 , 44 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924): “ * * * the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon m 1969In Rogers the Arizona Supreme Court held that a cross-assignment of error could be made where the purpose was to uphold the order, citing Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Arizona, 79 Ariz. 307 , 289 P.2d 183 (1955); There, the Supreme Court quoted from United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 , 44 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924): “ * * * the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon m	1	1969–1969
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. green ariz · 1966 2 sentences 1968While in certain cases a cross assignment of error is allowed without taking a cross appeal, Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company, 100 Ariz. 154 , 412 P.2d 272 (1966), a finding in plaintiff’s favor on this issue would not support, defend, or uphold any order of the trial court from which appeal has been taken by defendant. 1968While in certain cases a cross assignment of error is allowed without taking a cross appeal, Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company, 100 Ariz. 154 , 412 P.2d 272 (1966), a finding in plaintiff’s favor on this issue would not support, defend, or uphold any order of the trial court from which appeal has been taken by defendant.	1	1968–1968
Albert Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew green ariz · 1929 2 sentences 1951Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew, 35 Ariz. 147 , 274 P. 1047 ; Webb v. Crane Co., 52 Ariz. 299 , 80 P.2d 698 , and cases cited therein. 1951Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew, 35 Ariz. 147 , 274 P. 1047 ; Webb v. Crane Co., 52 Ariz. 299 , 80 P.2d 698 , and cases cited therein.	1	1951–1951
Webb v. Crane Co. green ariz · 1938 2 sentences 1951Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew, 35 Ariz. 147 , 274 P. 1047 ; Webb v. Crane Co., 52 Ariz. 299 , 80 P.2d 698 , and cases cited therein. 1951Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew, 35 Ariz. 147 , 274 P. 1047 ; Webb v. Crane Co., 52 Ariz. 299 , 80 P.2d 698 , and cases cited therein.	1	1951–1951
Decorso v. Thomas green utah · 1935 2 sentences 1945Decorso v. Thomas, 89 Utah 160 , 50 Pac. (2d) 951 . 1945Decorso v. Thomas, 89 Utah 160 , 50 Pac. (2d) 951 .	1	1945–1945

Where else courts name it

OH 88 (1981–2026) OR 49 (1987–2025) WV 28 (1948–2026) TX 22 (1888–2015) NC 15 (1980–2009) FL 14 (1934–1983) AZ 11 (1945–1990) VA 10 (1924–2019) AL 6 (1877–1955) MS 4 (1928–1973) MT 2 (1946–1962) WA 2 (2015–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check