Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2000 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tansy v. Morgangreen2 sentences1984See infra discussion at 370-371.) In Arizona, a party is entitled to have the sudden emergency instruction given if she produces sufficient evidence to show the actor was suddenly confronted with imminent peril, Tansy, supra, at 364 , 604 P.2d at 628 , or the actor reasonably believed she was suddenly confronted with imminent peril, Petefish, supra, 137 Ariz. at 574 , 672 P.2d at 918 (1983), provided the actor did not cause the sudden emergency through her own negligence, Tansy, supra, 124 Ariz. at 364 , 604 P.2d at 628 , and the actor “reacted to the emergency, even though that reactive condu 1984See infra discussion at 370-371.) In Arizona, a party is entitled to have the sudden emergency instruction given if she produces sufficient evidence to show the actor was suddenly confronted with imminent peril, Tansy, supra, at 364 , 604 P.2d at 628 , or the actor reasonably believed she was suddenly confronted with imminent peril, Petefish, supra, 137 Ariz. at 574 , 672 P.2d at 918 (1983), provided the actor did not cause the sudden emergency through her own negligence, Tansy, supra, 124 Ariz. at 364 , 604 P.2d at 628 , and the actor “reacted to the emergency, even though that reactive condu | 4 | 4 |
Western Truck Lines, Ltd. v. Berrygreen2 sentences1983See Western Truck Lines v. Berry, 52 Ariz. 38 , 78 P.2d 997 (1938), and Gilbert v. Quinet, supra. Words used in an opinion discussing legal principles are not necessarily the best words to be used in instructing the jury. 1983See Western Truck Lines v. Berry, 52 Ariz. 38 , 78 P.2d 997 (1938), and Gilbert v. Quinet, supra. Words used in an opinion discussing legal principles are not necessarily the best words to be used in instructing the jury. | 2 | 3 |
Woods v. Harkergreen2 sentences1984The court of appeals held that giving the sudden emergency instruction was reversible error; the court of appeals relied on Woods v. Harker, 22 Ariz.App. 83 , 523 P.2d 1320 (1974), to support its result. 1984The court of appeals held that giving the sudden emergency instruction was reversible error; the court of appeals relied on Woods v. Harker, 22 Ariz.App. 83 , 523 P.2d 1320 (1974), to support its result. | 1 | 3 |
Gilbert v. Quinetgreen2 sentences1982See Gilbert v. Quinet, 91 Ariz. 29 , 369 P.2d 267 (1962). 1982See Gilbert v. Quinet, 91 Ariz. 29 , 369 P.2d 267 (1962). | 1 | 3 |
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawegreen2 sentences1997We granted review to determine whether a sudden emergency instruction is ever appropriate under the principles espoused in Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329 , 857 P.2d 381 (1993) (disapproving the "sudden appearance" instruction), and Petefish v. Dawe, 137 Ariz. 570 , 672 P.2d 914 (1983). 1997We granted review to determine whether a sudden emergency instruction is ever appropriate under the principles espoused in Ro-sen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329 , 857 P.2d 381 (1993) (disapproving the “sudden appearance” instruction), and Petefish v. Dawe, 137 Ariz. 570 , 672 P.2d 914 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
Petefish v. Dawegreen2 sentences1997We granted review to determine whether a sudden emergency instruction is ever appropriate under the principles espoused in Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329 , 857 P.2d 381 (1993) (disapproving the "sudden appearance" instruction), and Petefish v. Dawe, 137 Ariz. 570 , 672 P.2d 914 (1983). 1997We granted review to determine whether a sudden emergency instruction is ever appropriate under the principles espoused in Ro-sen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329 , 857 P.2d 381 (1993) (disapproving the “sudden appearance” instruction), and Petefish v. Dawe, 137 Ariz. 570 , 672 P.2d 914 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
Long v. Corvogreen2 sentences2000See id. 2000See id. | 1 | 1 |
Fulton v. Johannsengreen2 sentences1984SUDDEN EMERGENCY The sudden emergency doctrine is designed to aid the factfinder “in determining the presence or absence of negligence ____” Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562, 565 , 416 P.2d 983, 986 (1966). 1984SUDDEN EMERGENCY The sudden emergency doctrine is designed to aid the factfinder “in determining the presence or absence of negligence ____” Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562, 565 , 416 P.2d 983, 986 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
Joel W. Martin v. City of New Orleans and David Michellgreen1 sentence1983See also Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979). [2] The analysis followed in Martin, supra, may well be theoretically correct ( see Young v. Miller, 79 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Livesay v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See Livesay v. State, 126 Ariz. 345 , 615 P.2d 642 (1980); Cano v. Neill, 12 Ariz.App. 562 , 473 P.2d 487 (1970). 1982See Livesay v. State, 126 Ariz. 345 , 615 P.2d 642 (1980); Cano v. Neill, 12 Ariz.App. 562 , 473 P.2d 487 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Brinsongreen2 sentences1982See Campbell v. Brinson, 89 Ariz. 197 , 360 P.2d 211 (1961); Western Truck Lines v. Berry, 52 Ariz. 38, 78 P.2d 997 (1938). 1982See Campbell v. Brinson, 89 Ariz. 197 , 360 P.2d 211 (1961); Western Truck Lines v. Berry, 52 Ariz. 38, 78 P.2d 997 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespingreen2 sentences1970If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any other ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions he does all the law requires of him although in the light of after events it should appear that a different course would have been better .and safer.” In granting the plaintiff a new trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Cour 1970If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any other ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions he does all the law requires of him although in the light of after events it should appear that a different course would have been better .and safer.” In granting the plaintiff a new trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Cour | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rosen v. Knaub
green
2 sentences1997We granted review to determine whether a sudden emergency instruction is ever appropriate under the principles espoused in Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329 , 857 P.2d 381 (1993) (disapproving the "sudden appearance" instruction), and Petefish v. Dawe, 137 Ariz. 570 , 672 P.2d 914 (1983). 1997We granted review to determine whether a sudden emergency instruction is ever appropriate under the principles espoused in Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329 , 857 P.2d 381 (1993) (disapproving the "sudden appearance" instruction), and Petefish v. Dawe, 137 Ariz. 570 , 672 P.2d 914 (1983). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Myhaver v. Knutson
green
1 sentence1997To say that the sudden emergency instruction should be confined to "the case in which the emergency is not of the routine sort produced by the impending accident but arises from events the driver could not be expected to anticipate," ante at 291, 942 P.2d at 450 , is not helpful. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cano v. Neill
green
2 sentences1982See Livesay v. State, 126 Ariz. 345 , 615 P.2d 642 (1980); Cano v. Neill, 12 Ariz.App. 562 , 473 P.2d 487 (1970). 1982See Livesay v. State, 126 Ariz. 345 , 615 P.2d 642 (1980); Cano v. Neill, 12 Ariz.App. 562 , 473 P.2d 487 (1970). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Lowery v. Turner
green
2 sentences1982See Campbell v. Brinson, 89 Ariz. 197 , 360 P.2d 211 (1961); Lowery v. Turner, 19 Ariz.App. 299 , 506 P.2d 1084 (1973). 1982See Campbell v. Brinson, 89 Ariz. 197 , 360 P.2d 211 (1961); Lowery v. Turner, 19 Ariz.App. 299 , 506 P.2d 1084 (1973). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Mesecher v. Cropp
green
2 sentences1979E. g., Beaumaster v. Crandall, 576 P.2d 988 (Alaska 1978); Kudrna v. Comet Corp., supra; Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695 , 518 P.2d 504 (1974); Vander Laan v. Miedema, supra; Spillers v. Simons, 42 Mich.App. 101 , 201 N.W.2d 374 (1972). 1979E. g., Beaumaster v. Crandall, 576 P.2d 988 (Alaska 1978); Kudrna v. Comet Corp., supra; Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695 , 518 P.2d 504 (1974); Vander Laan v. Miedema, supra; Spillers v. Simons, 42 Mich.App. 101 , 201 N.W.2d 374 (1972). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Kudrna v. Comet Corp.
green
1 sentence1979E. g., Beaumaster v. Crandall, 576 P.2d 988 (Alaska 1978); Kudrna v. Comet Corp., supra; Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695 , 518 P.2d 504 (1974); Vander Laan v. Miedema, supra; Spillers v. Simons, 42 Mich.App. 101 , 201 N.W.2d 374 (1972). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Beaumaster v. Crandall
green
1 sentence1979E. g., Beaumaster v. Crandall, 576 P.2d 988 (Alaska 1978); Kudrna v. Comet Corp., supra; Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695 , 518 P.2d 504 (1974); Vander Laan v. Miedema, supra; Spillers v. Simons, 42 Mich.App. 101 , 201 N.W.2d 374 (1972). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Spillers v. Simons
green
2 sentences1979E. g., Beaumaster v. Crandall, 576 P.2d 988 (Alaska 1978); Kudrna v. Comet Corp., supra; Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695 , 518 P.2d 504 (1974); Vander Laan v. Miedema, supra; Spillers v. Simons, 42 Mich.App. 101 , 201 N.W.2d 374 (1972). 1979E. g., Beaumaster v. Crandall, 576 P.2d 988 (Alaska 1978); Kudrna v. Comet Corp., supra; Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695 , 518 P.2d 504 (1974); Vander Laan v. Miedema, supra; Spillers v. Simons, 42 Mich.App. 101 , 201 N.W.2d 374 (1972). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Santanello v. Cooper
green
2 sentences1970If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any other ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions he does all the law requires of him although in the light of after events it should appear that a different course would have been better .and safer.” In granting the plaintiff a new trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Cour 1970If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any other ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions he does all the law requires of him although in the light of after events it should appear that a different course would have been better .and safer.” In granting the plaintiff a new trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Cour | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Heaton v. Waters
green
2 sentences1970If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any other ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions he does all the law requires of him although in the light of after events it should appear that a different course would have been better .and safer.” In granting the plaintiff a new trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Cour 1970If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any other ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions he does all the law requires of him although in the light of after events it should appear that a different course would have been better .and safer.” In granting the plaintiff a new trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Cour | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Southwestern Freight Lines, Ltd. v. Floyd
green
2 sentences1966In Southerwestern F. Lines, Ltd. v. Floyd, 58 Ariz. 249 , 119 P.2d 120 (1941) the court therein instructed on contributory negligence and explained at length why the sudden emergency doctrine was applicable. 1966In Southerwestern F. Lines, Ltd. v. Floyd, 58 Ariz. 249 , 119 P.2d 120 (1941) the court therein instructed on contributory negligence and explained at length why the sudden emergency doctrine was applicable. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.