Legal Opinion

Dillow v. City of Yuma

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1940No. Civil No. 4156PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the City of Yuma for damages for personal injuries sustained in falling upon one of its cement sidewalks, which she alleges was defective as will hereafter appear.

After plaintiff had introduced her evidence, on motion of defendant the jury was instructed tó return a verdict for defendant. The grounds upon which the court directed the verdict for defendant are (1) that the charter of the City of Yuma does not make it the duty of the city “to keep sidewalks in repair and in safe condition for the use of the public”} (2) the city is not an insurer…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. City of Phoenix v. MayfieldArizona Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Town of Flagstaff v. GomezArizona Supreme Court · 1921
  3. City of Phoenix v. ClemArizona Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Schultz v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Kuntz v. PittsburghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist.Arizona Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Parker v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1953
  3. City of Phoenix v. WeedonArizona Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Arizona State Highway Department v. BechtoldArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Haymes v. RogersArizona Supreme Court · 1950

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API