Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen, 696 P.2d 1342.

26 citing documents.

Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. 2024
Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. 2024
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, (domestic violence and other bad acts evidence admitted to rebut surviving spouse's claimed damages in wrongful death case); Udemba v. Nicoli, 237 F.3d 8, 14-16 (1st Cir. 2001) (past act of domestic violence admissible to show lack of damages); Fletcher v. City of New York, 54 F. Supp. 2d 328, 334 (S.
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
(affirming jury award of zero damages in wrongful death case when plaintiff, decedent’s husband, had an abusive relationship with her).
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
For instance, , we construed the “fair and just” provision of § 12-613 to permit an award of zero damages.
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
with the present case” because “there was no impeachment, contradiction or refutation of the evidence of [their] close family relations with John.” In response, GABA argues Sedillo is distinguishable because the plaintiffs in that case, unlike Chad and Marsha, “proved specific pecuniary losses” from the decedent’s death, and evidence of financial loss is required
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
on, as our statute provides, it does not follow that the interest[s] of the various beneficiaries are identical or that damages can be determined other than by adding the sum of each beneficiary’s separate damages.’” 129 P.3d at 972-73, quoting Wilmot, 58 P.3d at 513 (first alteration and emphasis in Valder Law Offices); (although “there is but ‘one’ plaintiff and ‘one’ judgment” in wrongful death case, damage “apportionment is based on individual pecuniary loss”; therefore, nothing “prohibits a
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
b (1965); n.1, n.1 (App. 2005) (recognizing that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965) “sets forth a ‘negligent entrustment’ claim”); (recognizing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 307 (1965) as basis for negligent entrustment claim).
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
DISCUSSION At the outset, we acknowledge that the petitioner has a right to participate in all facets of this litigation relating to dam *470 ages, , , (the right to counsel and the right to participate in litigation stemming from a wrongful death action extends to beneficiaries over the issue of damages), and where the interests of the beneficiaries conflict.
Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Center 819 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Center 819 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
which the dissent cites because our court affirmed an award of no damages to the husband of the deceased.
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986