Legal Opinion

McKinley v. Greyhound Park

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 10, 1967No. 1 CA-CIV 255PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEVENS, Judge.

The Appellants were the Plaintiffs in the Superior Court and the Appellees were the Defendants. The Appellants filed their action more than two years after the occurrence of the tort. The gravamen of their action was to seek a recovery for personal injuries. In order to avoid the two year statute of limitations, they sought to vacate and set aside a release of all claims. This phase of the litigation was incidental to the attempted recovery for the tort.

It is alleged that through the negligence of Greyhound Park, Mrs. McKinley sustained personal injuries on 14 February 1962.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hanen v. WillisArizona Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Acton v. MorrisonArizona Supreme Court · 1945
  3. City of Prescott v. SumidArizona Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  5. Peterson v. A. Guthrie & Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1933

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
  2. City of Tucson v. RuelasCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973
  3. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API