Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District, 595 P.2d 1017.

49 citing documents.

STITH v. BELLA VITA HEALTH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Dist., )); ¶ 5 (App. 2002) ("[Superior] courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case and admit additional evidence.").
Butler v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Butler v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dist., , (“The well-settled standard of liability is based upon a duty owed to the plaintiff and a breach of the duty which is the *440 proximate cause of the injury.”); see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 42, at 273-74 (5th ed.1984) (recognizing that limitations
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Explained Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Dist., , (affirming JMOL for school district because abduction and murder of student after she wandered from campus without permission did not result from foreseeable risk created by alleged negligence of school in supervising student).
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The duty of ordinary care owed by a
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Dist., , City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska, 17 Ariz.App.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Explained Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
: The rule requiring the issue to be raised on the motion for directed verdict is based upon the premise that the claimed omission in proof might be cured by a reopening of plaintiffs case if the trial court finds merit to the motion.
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Dist., , (school district owes duty of ordinary care toward student while student is under its charge).
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Dist., , (school personnel had duty of ordinary care to students in their charge).
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(“A public school district in Arizona is liable for negligence when it fails to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances.”); , (“[T]he duty of the school personnel ...
Fedie v. Travelodge International, Inc. 782 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Fedie v. Travelodge International, Inc. 782 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1989
Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1989
(quoting Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y.
Delozier v. Evans 763 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Delozier v. Evans 763 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
to support their claim of lack of foreseeability.
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 673 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 673 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
” , , quoting Palsgraf v. Long Island Ry.
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Salt River Project v. Industrial Commission 613 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Salt River Project v. Industrial Commission 613 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Parness v. City of Tempe 600 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Parness v. City of Tempe 600 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979