Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185.

34 citing documents.

Enterprise Life v. Adoi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Enterprise Life v. Adoi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety 352 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2015
Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety 352 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2015
s grant of qualified immunity, ¶ 16, (stating that courts may not “construe an immunity provision so narrowly as to abrogate the legislature’s grant of immunity”), and while remaining consistent with the court of appeals’ application of § 12-820.02(A)(7) in DeVries v. State, in which the driver suffered injury while driving, ¶ 2
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Because immunity is the exception to the general rule, we narrowly construe immunity provisions that are applicable to governmental entities.” ¶ 9
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
An injury is attributable to a driver’s violation, and qualified immunity applies, “when ‘the violation by the driver of § 28-693, 28-1381 or 28-1382’ is a cause or source of an injury to the driver.”
ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones 306 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Jones 306 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“The primary goal in interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” ¶ 6
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 12 “The primary goal in interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” ¶ 6
Thiele v. City of Phoenix 301 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Thiele v. City of Phoenix 301 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Followed ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 21 , Urias v. PCS Health Sys., Inc., ¶ 22
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 226 P.3d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 226 P.3d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Buencamino v. Noftsinger 221 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Buencamino v. Noftsinger 221 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009