Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hildebrand v. Minyard, 494 P.2d 1328.

30 citing documents.

A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
See, , (“Express assumption of risk is covered in Restatement (Second) of Torts s 496(B) (1965) which states: ‘A plaintiff who by contract or otherwise expressly agrees to accept a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s negligent or reckless conduct cannot recover for such harm, unless th
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Rather, the court’s , (distinguishing express and implied assumption of the risk from contributory negligence), and Valley Nat.
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Massey v. Colaric 725 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Massey v. Colaric 725 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
arm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s conduct or by the condition of the defendant’s land or chattel; (2) the plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the particular risk and appreciate its magnitude; and (3) the plaintiff must voluntarily choose to enter or remain within the area of the risk under circumstances that manifest his willingness to accept that particular risk.”
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
-31 (1972); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496(C) (1965).
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 640 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 640 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
as follows: “(1) There must be a risk of harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s conduct or by the condition of the defendant’s land or chattels; (2) Plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the particular risk and appreciate its magnitude, [citations omitted] (3) The plaintiff must voluntarily
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Menendez v. Bartlett 607 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Menendez v. Bartlett 607 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
: “(1) There must be a risk of harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s conduct or by the condition of the defendant’s land or chattels; “(2) Plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the particular risk and appreciate its magnitude.
Minyard v. Hildebrand 539 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Minyard v. Hildebrand 539 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972