Home/Court of Appeals of Arizona/Diedrich v. Farnsworth

Diedrich v. Farnsworth

413 P.2d 774, 3 Ariz. App. 264
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedApril 29, 1966
Docket1 CA-CIV 290
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 413 P.2d 774 (Diedrich v. Farnsworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Diedrich v. Farnsworth, 413 P.2d 774, 3 Ariz. App. 264 (Ark. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

MOLLOY, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment rendered n. o. v. in favor of the defendant and ap-pellee, Apache Land Development Company, after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants, Diedrich, in a flood damage case in which the jury found the plaintiffs’ damages to be in the sum of $10,000.00.

The only questions presented on appeal are (1) whether there was any material evidence to support the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant had interfered with the natural flow of water across certain lands of the defendant so as to cause rainwater to be diverted upon the plaintiffs’ property to their damage and (2) whether there was any valid evidence to sustain a finding of damage in the sum of^lO,000.00.

It is well-established law that in passing upon a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court is constrained to view the evidence in a light most favorably to support the verdict of the jury. Tucson Title Insurance Company v. D’Ascoli, 94 Ariz. 230, 383 P.2d 119 (1963). But, if reasonable men could not under the undisputed evidence lawfully find for the plaintiff, the entry of judgment n. o. v. for the defendant is proper. Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors, 91 Ariz. 331, 372 P.2d 333 (1962).

The plaintiffs are the owners of approximately two and one-half acres of land, six and one-quarter miles east of Mesa, fronting on a main thoroughfare beáring the designation of US Highways 60, 70, 80 and 89, which highway will be referred to as Highway 80 in this opinion. In the area in question this highway runs due east and west. The plaintiffs’ property is on the north side of this highway, fronts thereon for 165 feet and is 640 feet in depth. On the southern or front one-half of the property there was at the time of the flood damage in question, September 12, 1958, a partially constructed thirteen • unit . motel. There were five units completed together with a six-room home of the plaintiffs on the property, with other units under construction. On the rear, or north, end of plaintiffs’ property was an old shed. To the north of plaintiffs’ property lies thirty-five acres belonging to the defendant. Approximately 660 feet to the west of plaintiffs’ property is a public highway known as Higley Road, which intersects the US Highways 60-70-80-89 in a perpendicular fashion. Higley Road is the western boundary of defendant’s property. The physical layout of the respective properties is illustrated by the following sketch.

*266

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

White v. Pima County
775 P.2d 1154 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1989)
Bahman v. Estes Homes
710 P.2d 1087 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1985)
Petition of Giblin
232 N.W.2d 214 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1975)
Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates
517 P.2d 515 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
England v. Ally Ong Hing
446 P.2d 480 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1969)
Butler v. Wehrley
425 P.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 P.2d 774, 3 Ariz. App. 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diedrich-v-farnsworth-arizctapp-1966.