Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rodgers v. Ray, 457 P.2d 281.

34 citing documents.

Van Baalen v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Van Baalen v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶15 P.2d 281 (1969), -52, -80 (1984).
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
The court further stated: 7 We have found one case suggesting that public roads may be established by “common-law dedication and acceptance.”
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
We have found one case suggesting that public roads may be established by "common-law dedication and acceptance.”
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
102 , or provide additional traffic signs
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cf. Beach v. City of Phoenix, supra
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1984
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1984
unfortunate tendency to confuse the concepts of “duty” and standard of conduct and to argue that the city is, or is not, under a duty to post warning signs (see City of *52 , ), remove obstructions from the road or sidewalks ( , ), install traffic control devices ( , ), fix potholes (see Vegodsky v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App.
Spelbring v. Pinal County 662 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Spelbring v. Pinal County 662 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
348 , , State v. Watson, supra.
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Lake Havasu Irrigation & Drainage District v. Dubois 573 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lake Havasu Irrigation & Drainage District v. Dubois 573 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Dollar a Day Rent a Car Systems Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 526 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Dollar a Day Rent a Car Systems Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 526 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Slavin v. City of Tucson 495 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Slavin v. City of Tucson 495 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
348 , , State v. Watson, 7 Ariz.App.
O'BRIEN v. Scottsdale Discount Corporation 482 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
O'BRIEN v. Scottsdale Discount Corporation 482 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Pursuant to Rule 41(b), Arizona Rules of •Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law stating the reasons for dismissal as being: “(B) A landowner under the holding of Rodgers v. Ray [ , ], supra, cannot be held legally liable for injuries to persons occurring on streets adjacent to his property even if caused by a structure created or maintained by him on his property and even if such structure or planting obstructed the vision of the persons using a publi
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
wherein the court stated: “This court recognizes, of course, that there may be liability for excavations or other artificial conditions so near to existing highways that the possessor should realize there is an unreasonable risk to others of being injured by physical contact with such artificial con
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
we question the appropriateness of this section as to the facts in this case.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by