exceptions to this general rule (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

exceptions to this general rule in Arizona

5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2018 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Slow Development Company v. Coultergreen
ariz · 1960 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976And: “ * * * one of the exceptions to this general rule is recognized in circumstances where evidence of subsequent repairs' or of precautions taken, may properly be admitted when it tends to impeach the testimony of a witness.” Slow Development Co. v. Coulter, 88 Ariz. 122, 127 , 353 P.2d 890, 893 (1960).

1976And: “ * * * one of the exceptions to this general rule is recognized in circumstances where evidence of subsequent repairs' or of precautions taken, may properly be admitted when it tends to impeach the testimony of a witness.” Slow Development Co. v. Coulter, 88 Ariz. 122, 127 , 353 P.2d 890, 893 (1960).

11
Town of South Tucson v. Board of Supervisorsgreen
ariz · 1938 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956
2 sentences

1956See, Town of South Tucson v. Board of Sup'rs, 52 Ariz. 575 , 84 P.2d 581, 584 ; Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60 , 223 P.2d 808 .

1956See, Town of South Tucson v. Board of Sup'rs, 52 Ariz. 575 , 84 P.2d 581, 584 ; Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60 , 223 P.2d 808 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
City Center Executive Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen green
arizctapp · 2015
2 sentences

2018The exceptions to this general rule include those situations in which the "attorneys' fees are a legal consequence of an original wrongful act," City Ctr. , 237 Ariz. 37 , ¶ 13, 344 P.3d 339 , often referred to as the "tort of another" principle, see State Bar of Arizona, Arizona Attorneys' Fees Manual § 7.3.1, at 7-2 (Bruce E.

2018The exceptions to this general rule include those situations in which the "attorneys' fees are a legal consequence of an original wrongful act," City Ctr. , 237 Ariz. 37 , ¶ 13, 344 P.3d 339 , often referred to as the "tort of another" principle, see State Bar of Arizona, Arizona Attorneys' Fees Manual § 7.3.1, at 7-2 (Bruce E.

12018–2018
Dean v. Superior Court green
ariz · 1958
1 sentence

1965We- then *175 stated that production of the statements should not be denied, “ * * * when good cause is shown that the same are sought to impeach or determine the credibility of the witness.” Id. at 113, 324 P.2d at 770 .

11965–1965
Hatfield v. Levy Brothers green
cal · 1941
2 sentences

1960Co., 48 Cal.2d 655 , 313 P.2d 557 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1283 ; Hatfield v. Levy Brothers, 18 Cal.2d 798 , 117 P.2d 841 .

1960Co., 48 Cal.2d 655 , 313 P.2d 557 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1283 ; Hatfield v. Levy Brothers, 18 Cal.2d 798 , 117 P.2d 841 .

11960–1960
Daggett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. green
cal · 1957
2 sentences

1960Co., 48 Cal.2d 655 , 313 P.2d 557 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1283 ; Hatfield v. Levy Brothers, 18 Cal.2d 798 , 117 P.2d 841 .

1960Co., 48 Cal.2d 655 , 313 P.2d 557 , 64 A.L.R.2d 1283 ; Hatfield v. Levy Brothers, 18 Cal.2d 798 , 117 P.2d 841 .

11960–1960
Roberts v. Spray green
ariz · 1950
2 sentences

1956See, Town of South Tucson v. Board of Sup'rs, 52 Ariz. 575 , 84 P.2d 581, 584 ; Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60 , 223 P.2d 808 .

1956See, Town of South Tucson v. Board of Sup'rs, 52 Ariz. 575 , 84 P.2d 581, 584 ; Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60 , 223 P.2d 808 .

11956–1956

Where else courts name it

NY 13 (1852–2024) IL 11 (1886–2001) TX 11 (1910–2023) GA 10 (1875–2009) AL 7 (1929–2015) MI 5 (1971–2018) PA 5 (1928–2024) NC 5 (1981–2013) AZ 5 (1956–2018) LA 5 (1954–1995) CA 4 (1975–2014) MO 3 (1927–2003) WI 3 (1996–2023) MA 3 (1875–1914) NM 3 (2016–2020) OH 3 (2000–2016) HI 2 (2008–2008) SD 2 (1999–2009) OR 2 (1914–1957) SC 2 (2004–2005) FL 2 (1913–1980) ND 2 (2008–2008) IN 2 (1929–1984) VT 2 (1992–2016) MT 2 (1934–1998)

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