Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bible v. First National Bank of Rawlins, 515 P.2d 351.

26 citing documents.

Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ass’n v. DeValencia, (“When confronted with a motion for summary judgment, the responding party has the burden of presenting evidence that justifies a trial.”); Bible v. First Nat’l Bank of Rawlins, (“[I]n responding to a motion for summary judgment it is the duty of counsel to bring to the attention of the trial court those portions of the record (in the absence of controverting affidavits) which will support his position that a disputed issue of material fact exists.”).
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Miller, 171 Ariz. at 391 , 831 P.2d at 390 ; Bible v. First Nat’l Bank of Rawlins, , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427 (1965).
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 370, ¶ 10 , 10 P.3d at 628 (employer instructs independent contractor “on what to do, but not how to do it”); Bible v. First Nat’l Bank of Rawlins, -57 , -54 (1973) (repossession company was independent contractor where “how, when, who, and where” of the repossession were left to the discretion of the repossession company).
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership 831 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership 831 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bible v. First Nat’l Bank of Rawlins
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 800 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1990
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 800 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1990
Restatement §§ 416, 427; Bible v. First Nat’l Bank
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In order for the exception to apply, “[t]he work itself must be of a character that it involves a risk of harm which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care____”
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See also Bible v. First Nat’l Bank
ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, ETC. v. Olson 643 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, ETC. v. Olson 643 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Dassinger v. Oden 606 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Dassinger v. Oden 606 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
and United States v. Kabinto, 456 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1972).
Bohonus v. Amerco 602 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1979
Bohonus v. Amerco 602 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1979
Although appellee correctly states the generally accepted rule [ , National Car Rental v. Fox, 18 Ariz.App.
Currie v. Sechrist 581 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Currie v. Sechrist 581 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
: While Restatement of Agency and the courts have attempted to list various criteria by which to test the relationship involved, “the ultimate fact which these evidentiary facts are merely intended to assist the jury or court in determining, is whether the alleged servant is subject to th
Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. 577 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. 577 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
A. I. D. Insurance Services v. Riley 541 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
A. I. D. Insurance Services v. Riley 541 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
8 , 60 S.W.2d 115 (1933); , Couch on Insurance 2d, Vol.