Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co., 406 P.2d 430.

36 citing documents.

Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc. 42 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc. 42 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
First Nat’l , Wyatt v. Otis Elevator Co., 921 F.2d 1224 (11th Cir.1991); White v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 242 F.2d 821 (4th Cir.1957); Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal.
Cox v. May Department Store Co. 903 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Cox v. May Department Store Co. 903 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(Res ipsa loquitur can be applied against two or more defendants where there is joint control.), Defendants, though, argue that Cox, not defendants, had exclusive control over how she was using the escalator.
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
Division One of this court stated: “The duty which an owner or occupant of property is under to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition cannot be delegated by him so as to avoid personal responsibility.” In light of the court’s holding that the owner/bank was itself negligent, w
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
the plaintiff was injured when elevator doors closed unexpectedly, knocking her to the ground.
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81 (9th Cir.1956); , opinion on rehearing, 2 Ariz.App.
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance 722 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance 722 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ruiz v. OLIS ELEVATOR 703 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Ruiz v. OLIS ELEVATOR 703 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Jackson v. HH Robertson Co., Inc. 574 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1978
Jackson v. HH Robertson Co., Inc. 574 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1978
Tucson Gas, Electric Light & , 236 P. 464 (1925)
Torres v. Kennecott Copper Corporation 488 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Torres v. Kennecott Copper Corporation 488 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1956) ; , opinion on rehearing
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Advance Transformer Co. 485 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Advance Transformer Co. 485 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
267 , 193 N.E.2d 920 (1963); , , reheaxing denied 2 Ariz.App.
First National Bank v. Otis Elevator Co. 445 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
First National Bank v. Otis Elevator Co. 445 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In its motion for summary judgment, , supplemented at 2 Ariz.App.
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
rehearing denied 2 Ariz.App.
Brecheisen v. Paris 436 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1968
Brecheisen v. Paris 436 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1968
Snethen v. Gomez 432 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Snethen v. Gomez 432 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
“(4) plaintiff must not be in a position to show the particular circumstances which caused the offending agency or instrumentality to operate to his injury.” , 406 Pac.
Schwamm v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 421 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Schwamm v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 421 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Kennecott Copper Corporation v. McDowell 413 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1966
Kennecott Copper Corporation v. McDowell 413 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1966
State v. Salazar 412 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Salazar 412 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, stated in particularly appropriate language in the Mendez case, supra, at , as determinative of this issue, that: “The final question raised by the defendant concerns the validity of the prior misdemeanor conviction which, when established, raises the petty theft conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony.