Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Sandoval

Arizona Supreme Court

Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Sandoval

68 P.2d 960, 50 Ariz. 59, 1937 Ariz. LEXIS 154

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedJune 14, 1937

DocketCivil No. 3821.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 P.2d 960 (Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Sandoval) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Sandoval, 68 P.2d 960, 50 Ariz. 59, 1937 Ariz. LEXIS 154 (Ark. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, from a judgment in favor of Rosa Sandoval, hereinafter called plaintiff. This case has been before us previously (47 Ariz. 167,54 P.2d 557), and the judgment therein was reversed and the case sent back for a new trial. The jury again returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

We have examined the assignments of error, and it is clear that they are entirely insufficient under rule XII of this court to raise any question whatever for our consideration. Thornburg v.Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548, and cases cited therein. *Page 60

The judgment of the superior court of Maricopa county is affirmed.

McALISTER, C.J., and ROSS, J., concur.

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

This is an appeal by the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, from a judgment in favor of Rosa Sandoval, hereinafter called plaintiff. This case has been before us previously (47 Ariz. 167,54 P.2d 557), and the judgment therein was reversed and the case sent back for a new trial. The jury again returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

We have examined the assignments of error, and it is clear that they are entirely insufficient under rule XII of this court to raise any question whatever for our consideration. Thornburg v.Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548, and cases cited therein. *Page 60

The judgment of the superior court of Maricopa county is affirmed.

McALISTER, C.J., and ROSS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 P.2d 960, 50 Ariz. 59, 1937 Ariz. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovereign-camp-wow-v-sandoval-ariz-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack