Deering Ex Rel. Deering v. Carter

How courts have described this case

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

• under Arizona statute, multiple plaintiffs in separate cases were not entitled to separate sets of challenges when cases were consolidated for trial
• “The question of what is an 9 ‘appropriate reduced speed’ under any set of circumstances is a question for the jury.”
• “In establishing [negligence per se], the jury need only find that the party committed the specif ic act prohibited, or omitted to do the specific act required by the statute or ordinance.”
• jury instruction was erroneous that stated that the failure to drive an appropriate reduced speed when approaching or crossing an intersection or hill crest in the presence of an actual or potential hazard was negligence per se
• rule that peremptory challenges to jurors must be shared among all parties on a side in a consolidated case is not “less fair” than application of same rule in non-consolidated multi-party case
• “When, as here, the statute does not 6 proscribe certain or specific acts, but defines a standard of conduct against which the jury 7 must measure the party’s conduct, a finding that the party violated the statutory standard is 8 a finding that the party was negligent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).