Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scottsdale Jaycees v. SUPERIOR CT. OF MARICOPA CO., 499 P.2d 185.

52 citing documents.

Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Ct., , (holding that when the dispute is not with the facts but with "the legal conclusions to be drawn from” the facts, the legal conclusions "are properly resolved by the court sitting in its capacity as judge and not in its capacity as a trier of fact.”).
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
16 (volunteer may be considered “agent” of organization for purpose of respondeat superior liability, leaving question of “when .
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶29 In the summary judgment context, where the facts are undisputed and the “legal conclusions to be drawn from th[o]se facts” are the matter “in actual dispute,” the trial court should resolve those questions “sitting in its capacity as judge and not in its capacity as a trier 19 of fact.”
7200 Scottsdale Road General Partners v. Kuhn Farm MacHinery, Inc. 909 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
7200 Scottsdale Road General Partners v. Kuhn Farm MacHinery, Inc. 909 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rather, it is the legal conclusions to be drawn from these facts that are in actual dispute.”
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
According to the doctrine of respondeat superior, “an employer is vicariously liable only for the behavior of an employee who was acting within the course and scope of his employment.”
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
travel necessarily incurred in coming to or going from work does not fall within the scope of employment.
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
this court stated: Generally, we are reluctant to accept jurisdiction in this type of situation and have previously indicated that our review of denials of motions for summary judgment will be sparingly exercised.
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Moore 750 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Moore 750 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Scottsdale Jaycee’s v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, , citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 225 (1958).
Love v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 760 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Love v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 760 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bao Thi Nguyen v. Phuc Thi Nguyen 746 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Bao Thi Nguyen v. Phuc Thi Nguyen 746 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
See generally Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp. 640 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp. 640 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Instead, “it is the legal conclusions to be drawn from these facts that are in actual dispute and these are properly resolved by the court sitting in its capacity as judge and not in its capacity as trier of fact.”
Lim v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 616 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Lim v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 616 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Maxwell v. Bell 591 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Maxwell v. Bell 591 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Rondelli v. County of Pima 586 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rondelli v. County of Pima 586 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., supra.
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Bennett v. Estate of Baker 557 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Bennett v. Estate of Baker 557 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Barnes v. Lopez 544 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Barnes v. Lopez 544 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 225 (1958).
Olson v. Staggs-Bilt Homes, Inc. 534 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Olson v. Staggs-Bilt Homes, Inc. 534 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court 505 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court 505 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
483 , , Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 13 Ariz.App.
Hine v. Superior Court 504 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hine v. Superior Court 504 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
571 , Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.App.
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 503 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 503 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
453 , , establish that it is appropriate for this Court to entertain the present special action.