Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brooks, 534 P.2d 271.

43 citing documents.

Yahweh v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Yahweh v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
No. 97, 214 Ariz. at 297, ¶ 14 ().
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 295, ¶ 6 , 152 P.3d at 492
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
¶13 In State v. Brooks, the court of appeals considered the predecessor to the current claim statute, which provided only that “[p]ersons having claims on contract or for negligence against the state, which have been disallowed, may on the terms and conditions set forth in this article, bring action thereon against the state and prosecute the action to final judgment.” (quoting A.R.S.
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
P.3d 121 (App. 2000); P.2d 1347 (App. 1983); P.2d 271 (1975).
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
2, § 18 (“[t]he Legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what court suits may be brought against the State”); , (holding the purpose of the one-year statute of limitations period is to provide the State with notice and an opportunity to investigate and assess its liability, to permit the possibility of settlement prior to litigation, and to assist in fiscal planning or budgeting).
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
is “to provide notice to the State of claims against it, to permit the possibility of settlement prior to litigation and to assist in the budgeting process.”
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix 793 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix 793 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
is barred and no action may be maintained____ The statute, through its many amendments, has never defined the word “claim.” In 1975, , defined the word.
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
the court of appeals set forth three recognized purposes of an earlier version of § 12-821: (1) to afford the agency the opportunity to investigate the claim and assess its liability; (2) to afford the agency the opportunity to attain a settlement and avoid costly litigation; and (3) to advi
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Creasy v. Coxon 750 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Creasy v. Coxon 750 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
City of Tucson v. Fleischman 731 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
City of Tucson v. Fleischman 731 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pima County v. Maya Construction Co. 761 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pima County v. Maya Construction Co. 761 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The purposes of the claims statute, , are to afford the public entity the opportunity to investigate the claim and assess its liability, to pursue settlement and avoid litigation, and to advise the legislature of its potential liability where settlement is not achieved.
Ames v. State 694 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ames v. State 694 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
for negligence against the state, which have been disallowed, may on the terms and conditions set forth in this article, bring action thereon against the state and prosecute the action to final judgment.” , the Arizona Court of Appeals remarked that: “[T]he reason for adoption of ‘claims statutes’ is threefold: (1) to afford an opportunity to the agency to investigate the merits of the claim and seasonably assess its potential for liability, (2) to afford the opportunity to arrive at a settlemen
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Dassinger v. Oden, 124 * P.2d 41 (App. 1979)
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Clark v. State Livestock Sanitary Board 642 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Clark v. State Livestock Sanitary Board 642 P.2d 896 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
On May 9, 1977, just over two years after the incident, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the claim letter filed with the Department of Public Safety was deficient in that it failed to include an offer to settle for a

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by