DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC., 613 P.2d 1283.

21 citing documents.

  • KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    standard) applies when a jury must “measure” a party’s conduct when the statute does not prohibit certain or specific acts, while negligence per se is “better reserved to describe those instances where certain acts or omissions constitute negligence without further inquiry into the circumstances or reasonableness of their occurrence.” Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc., ().
  • State of Arizona v. Hon. aragon/max Fontes Ariz. 2022
    Therefore, “the issue of ‘superseding cause’ is never reached.” Id.; see also Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 7 STATE OF ARIZONA V. HON.
  • Ibarra v. Gastelum 471 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    negligence per se is inappropriate.” ¶ 14 (App. 2005) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc., (“Other jurisdictions have also limited the application of negligence per se to statutes which express rules of conduct in specific and concrete terms as opposed to general or abstract principles”) (citing cases).
  • Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See Hutto v. Francisco , , ¶ 12, , 937 (App. 2005) ("Negligence per se applies when there has been a violation of a specific requirement of a law."), quoting Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc. , , 229, , 1285 (App. 1980).
  • State v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    In sum, there is Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  • 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
    PFS asserts that in Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc., , this court already considered and rejected the proposition that Arizona’s repossession statute imposes such “specified safeguards or precautions.” Griffith , however, is not controlling here.
  • Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    “Negligence per se applies when there has been a violation of a specific requirement of a law.” Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc., , (citation omitted).
  • Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc., , accord, Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau
  • Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    “[Njegligence per se applies when there has been a violation of a specific requirement of a law or an ordinance.” Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc., , (emphasis in original).
  • Town of Oro Valley v. Superior Court 721 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Town of Oro Valley v. Superior Court 721 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    Whether such a duty exists is a question of law for the court, Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc., , and may be determined on a motion for summary judgment.
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    See Griffith v. Valley of the Sun *519 Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  • 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
    Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., , Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  • Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc. 666 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc. 666 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc.