DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC., 230 P.3d 718.

45 citing documents.

  • GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 27 (App. 2010) ("The undisputed facts of the limited undertaking, rather than an alleged industry standard, must form the foundation for determining whether a duty exists.").
  • McCarthy v. Kummerle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • McCarthy v. Kummerle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Lubrication Service, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2010).
  • Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    3 HASSE v. AVONDALE Decision of the Court v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2010).
  • Cruger v. Blansette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Cruger v. Blansette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2010).
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    “We determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the [superior] court correctly applied the law.” Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc.
  • Schiager v. Landmark Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Schiager v. Landmark Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    In reaching this conclusion, instructive.
  • Designee v. Honda Aircraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Designee v. Honda Aircraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “We determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the [superior] court correctly applied the law.”2 Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Sunburst Farms v. Braden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Sunburst Farms v. Braden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “We determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the [superior] court correctly applied the law.” Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Slater v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Slater v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., -40 ¶¶ 15–19 (App. 2010), or from promises of confidentiality, Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669-671 (1991) (recognizing an enforceable promise of confidentiality under promissory estoppel).
  • Haberl v. McAllister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Haberl v. McAllister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “We determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the [superior] court correctly applied the law.” Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • MacKay v. Auto-Owners Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • MacKay v. Auto-Owners Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶8 AOI contends, as it did in its summary judgment motion, that notice of a hazardous condition is a threshold issue such that there is no duty if there is no notice.
  • Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
  • Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., –40 ¶¶ 15–19 (App. 2010) (discussing duty arising from a contract).
  • Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (a regulation may give rise to a tort duty premised on public policy where it “is designed to protect the class of persons, in which the plaintiff is included, against the risk of the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of its violation”); Wickham, 226 Ariz. at 473, ¶¶ 24-27, 250 P.3d at 250; Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 25, (declining to find a duty of care where the plaintiffs “neither cite[d] nor suggest[ed] a statute that might create a duty” and the common law
  • Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., , 340 ¶ 21, (noting Gipson did not decide whether a common law duty existed and rejecting duty argument under Ontiveros and Restatement Third § 7 because defendant did not create the risk to plaintiff).
  • Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    see also Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12
  • Ritchie v. Costello 356 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ritchie v. Costello 356 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “The existence of a duty is a question of law that we review de novo.” Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12, ( ¶ 11, ).
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 20, but see Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ¶ 15, (rejecting Arizona Department of Transportation guidelines as basis for tort duty).
  • Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12
  • Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank 307 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank 307 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12
  • Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12
  • Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Lubrication Serv., Inc., 224 Ariz. 335, ¶ 10
  • Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    “The existence of a duty is a question of law that we review de novo.” Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12 , ( ¶ 11 , ).