Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership, 602 P.2d 495.

28 citing documents.

Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
P'ship , , 117, , 498 (App. 1979).
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
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Partnership, , Pruett v. *389 Precision Plumbing, Inc., 27 Ariz.App.
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Thus, , the court held: The right to program or direct the sequence of the work or reserving the right to prescribe changes or alterations does not give defendant the right to control the method or manner of doing the work.
Cahn v. Fisher 805 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Cahn v. Fisher 805 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Shamrock Foods Co. v. City of Phoenix 757 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Shamrock Foods Co. v. City of Phoenix 757 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
United Farm Workers v. Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board 716 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
United Farm Workers v. Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board 716 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Cordova v. Parrett 703 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cordova v. Parrett 703 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sullins v. Third and Catalina, Inc.
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
We observe that while Arizona courts will apply the Restatement (Second) of Torts in the absence of authority to the contrary, Sullins v. Third and Catalina, Etc., , here the legislature has clearly provided, in A.R.S.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ETC. v. Rick 654 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ETC. v. Rick 654 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
It was not presented to the trial court, , and it was not presented in this court in appellant’s opening brief.
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 649 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 649 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Adhering to the rule that a summary judgment may not be reversed on grounds first advanced on appeal, , we will not consider this new argument.