6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1936–1983 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wisener v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Wisener v. State, 123 Ariz. 148, 149 , 598 P.2d 511, 512 (1979). 1983Wisener v. State, 123 Ariz. 148, 149 , 598 P.2d 511, 512 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bedwell v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975That it is fundamental the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing the essential elements of his claim and *392 his entitlement to further benefits; In Re Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443 , 454 P.2d 985 (1969) ; that it is further fundamental that when a ‘medical’ reopening is sought, as here, the applicant has the burden of establishing the existence of a new, additional, or previously undiscovered (physical) condition and that said condition is causally related to the subject episode and said burden is not met merely by producing ‘new evidence’; [Citations omitted] that this princi 1975That it is fundamental the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing the essential elements of his claim and *392 his entitlement to further benefits; In Re Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443 , 454 P.2d 985 (1969) ; that it is further fundamental that when a ‘medical’ reopening is sought, as here, the applicant has the burden of establishing the existence of a new, additional, or previously undiscovered (physical) condition and that said condition is causally related to the subject episode and said burden is not met merely by producing ‘new evidence’; [Citations omitted] that this princi | 2 | 1972–1975 |
Southwest Cotton Co. v. Valley Bank
green
2 sentences1936We have discussed the essential elements of waiver in the cases of Southwest Cotton Co. v. Valley Bank, 26 Ariz. 559 , 227 Pac. 986, 988 , and Davis v. Standard Accident Ins. 1936We have discussed the essential elements of waiver in the cases of Southwest Cotton Co. v. Valley Bank, 26 Ariz. 559 , 227 Pac. 986, 988 , and Davis v. Standard Accident Ins. | 2 | 1936–1958 |
Whitley v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975That it is fundamental the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing the essential elements of his claim and *392 his entitlement to further benefits; In Re Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443 , 454 P.2d 985 (1969) ; that it is further fundamental that when a ‘medical’ reopening is sought, as here, the applicant has the burden of establishing the existence of a new, additional, or previously undiscovered (physical) condition and that said condition is causally related to the subject episode and said burden is not met merely by producing ‘new evidence’; [Citations omitted] that this princi 1975That it is fundamental the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing the essential elements of his claim and *392 his entitlement to further benefits; In Re Estate of Bedwell, 104 Ariz. 443 , 454 P.2d 985 (1969) ; that it is further fundamental that when a ‘medical’ reopening is sought, as here, the applicant has the burden of establishing the existence of a new, additional, or previously undiscovered (physical) condition and that said condition is causally related to the subject episode and said burden is not met merely by producing ‘new evidence’; [Citations omitted] that this princi | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Arizona Title Guarantee & Trust, Co. v. Modern Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1973This question was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Arizona Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Modern Homes, Inc., 84 Ariz. 399 , 330 P.2d 113 (1958), as follows: “One of the essential elements of waiver is intention to waive the right involved and where not expressed, one’s conduct must be such as to warrant the inference of such intention. 1973This question was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Arizona Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Modern Homes, Inc., 84 Ariz. 399 , 330 P.2d 113 (1958), as follows: “One of the essential elements of waiver is intention to waive the right involved and where not expressed, one’s conduct must be such as to warrant the inference of such intention. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Davis v. Standard Accident Insurance
green
2 sentences1936Co., 35 Ariz. 392 , 278 Pac. 384, 386 . 1936Co., 35 Ariz. 392 , 278 Pac. 384, 386 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.