Crosby v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• Exclusion of evidence relating to damages was not prejudicial as all recovery was denied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-10-23· cited 60×
• Concannon v. Yewell
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-02-03· cited 17×
• Taylor v. Security National Bank
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1973-09-18· cited 12×
• Murphy v. Frinkman
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1978-12-19· cited 10×
• Hiett v. Howard
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-03-20· cited 7×
• Chambers v. Taber
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1974-02-07· cited 4×

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Fluor Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 1969-01-06· cited 32×
• Shetter v. Rochelle
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1966-02-25· cited 31×
• Odom v. First National Bank of Arizona
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1959-03-04· cited 25×
• Thompson v. Harris
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1969-03-13· cited 24×
• Crouch v. Pixler
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1958-02-05· cited 23×
• Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cleveland
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1959-10-21· cited 23×
• Davis v. Chilson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1936-11-16· cited 18×
• Lukens v. Goit
  Wyoming Supreme Court· 1967-08-01· cited 16×
• Crouch v. Truman
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1958-07-09· cited 16×
• Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1969-08-07· cited 13×
• Patch v. Buros
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1966-02-09· cited 9×
• Foster v. Ames
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1967-01-19· cited 8×
• Farm & Auto Supply v. Phoenix Fuel Co.
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1968-06-12· cited 7×