Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cluff v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 460 P.2d 666.

70 citing documents.

Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Exch., 8 TORRES, et al. v. MARICOPA, et al, Decision of the Court (1969) (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts Section 46, Comment (d) (1965), overruled in part on other grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Shepherd v. Costco 441 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shepherd v. Costco 441 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Minotto v. Van Cott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Minotto v. Van Cott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jaffe v. Capital One Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jaffe v. Capital One Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Exch., overruled on other grounds by Godbehere v. Phx.
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Exch., (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt.
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Exchange, , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt.
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Exch., , overruled by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Exch., , it also declares an element of personal freedom and autonomy that the state may legislate to protect.
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Exchange, , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt.
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(beneficiary’s attempt to force trustor into default did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress); , (collection agency’s phone calls to debtor and use of abusive language did not constitute outrageous conduct needed to establish such a claim); , (insurance adjustor’s threatening phone calls cajoling plaintiff to settle did not constitute type of behavior needed to support emotional distress claim).
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Exch., , see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46.
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 783 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1989
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 783 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1989
Farmers Insurance Exchange, , ).
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 746 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 746 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Cluff v. Farmer’s Insurance Exchange, , (citing Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal.L.Rev.
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Exchange, , as do appellants.
Lindsey v. Dempsey 735 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lindsey v. Dempsey 735 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd. 716 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1986
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd. 716 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1986
Rutledge v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 715 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Rutledge v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 715 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Exch., , (incorporating the requirements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress into an action for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude).
Helfond v. Stamper 716 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Helfond v. Stamper 716 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
In Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, , the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s granting of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress, , : “Even if the defendant’s acts are done ‘wilfully, intentionally and maliciously’ with ‘intent to inflict mental suffering and emotional distress,’ it becomes the duty of the court in the first instance, as society’s conscience, to determine whether the acts complained of can
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd. 716 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd. 716 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Midas Muffler Shop v. Ellison 650 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Midas Muffler Shop v. Ellison 650 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In an attempt to minimize wasted judicial resources on meritless claims for relief under this tort, however, “it becomes the duty of the court in the first instance, as society’s conscience, to determine whether the acts complained of can be considered as extreme and outrageous conduct in order to state a claim for relief.”
Valencia v. Duval Corp. 645 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Duhammel v. Star 653 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Duhammel v. Star 653 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Valencia v. Duval Corp. 645 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982