Legal Opinion

Ring v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 8, 1985No. 1 CA-CIV 6754PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellants (Rings) initiated garnishment proceedings against appellee (State Farm) to enforce a judgment against the judgment debtor/insured’s (Taylor) automobile liability insurance policy. The judgment, in the amount of $1,321,500.00, arose out of an automobile collision between the Ring and Taylor vehicles. State Farm appealed the judgment on behalf of Taylor without filing a supersedeas bond or obtaining an order staying execution. 1

Taylor was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by State Farm. The garnishment proceeding filed by Rings sought not only…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Noble v. National American Life InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy.Arizona Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Murray v. MossmanWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  4. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. LittleArizona Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Gilley Ex Rel. Gilley v. FarmerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1971

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Elmore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Cassidy v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. of TexasDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1998
  5. Leal v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000

10 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