Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 667 P.2d 750.

31 citing documents.

MAYWALD v. TOYOTA Ariz. 2026
See Rogers, 115 Ariz. at 307 (“That the Unimac Company could have adopted a different type of safety device, [i.e.] a lid lock, is not in itself sufficient evidence to establish defective design.”); Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., (“The fact that an alternate safety feature may be available does not in and of itself render a product .
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of the existence and seriousness of the danger.” Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dole Food, 188 Ariz. at 303 , 935 P.2d at 881 (citing Shell Oil, 119 Ariz. at 434 , 581 P.2d at 279 ); Piper, 180 Ariz. at 177 , 883 P.2d at 414 ("Determining whether a warning is adequate to apprise users of dangers in the product is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact."); Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , (same); Shell Oil, 119 Ariz. at 434 , 581 P.2d at 279 ("determination as to whether the supplier's duty .
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(holding manufacturer had no duty to warn of dangers from product modifications of which the manufacturer had actual knowledge) with Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , (holding manufacturer of a power saw, that was safe if used with a grounded extension cord, could be liable for failure to warn if it was foreseeable user would attach improper cord).
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
See, , (plaintiffs proceeded simultaneously with theories of defective design, improper instructions, and failure to warn); Brown v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , (genuine issue of material fact concerning both alleged design defect and failure to warn).
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc. 725 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc. 725 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Accord Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Tri-City Property Management Services, Inc. v. Research Products Corp. 721 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Tri-City Property Management Services, Inc. v. Research Products Corp. 721 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Maake v. Ross Operating Valve Co. 717 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Maake v. Ross Operating Valve Co. 717 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Gurr v. Willcutt 707 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Gurr v. Willcutt 707 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
“[I]f there is the slightest doubt as to whether a factual issue remains in dispute, the granting of summary judgment is erroneous and the doubt must be resolved in favor of a trial on the merits.” Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Brewer v. Home Insurance 710 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Brewer v. Home Insurance 710 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 722 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 722 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Raschke v. Carrier Corp. 703 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Raschke v. Carrier Corp. 703 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Carrier’s position in this case is similar to that of Coleman Cable in Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Rudy v. Meshorer 706 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Rudy v. Meshorer 706 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n 698 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n 698 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Drawing all inferences in favor of appellant against whom summary judgment was granted, see Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , we will assume that S.R.P.