DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., 323 P.3d 753.

30 citing documents.

  • Potter v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Potter v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2014) (“We generally do not consider arguments and legal issues on appeal that have not been specifically presented to the superior court.”).
  • Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    at 564-65, ¶¶ 8, 12 (citing Guerra, 237 Ariz. at 185, ¶ 8; Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2014)).
  • Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2014) ("The formation of a special relationship is often based on some aspect of control.").
  • Stair v. Maricopa 429 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Stair v. Maricopa 429 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    of Pardons & Paroles, -68 (1977); Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., -73, ¶ 10 (App. 2014); Second Restatement §§ 315, 316, 317, 319.
  • 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
    See, ¶ 8 (2015) (stating foreseeability is no longer a factor in determining duty); Barkhurst v. Kingsman of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (citing Gipson and stating that foreseeability “is no longer the proper standard for determining duty in Arizona”).
  • Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2014).
  • 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
    Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 10
  • Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2014).
  • Silverwood v. Kush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Silverwood v. Kush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., -73, ¶ 10 (App. 2014).
  • Steelman v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Steelman v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2014).
  • 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
    See Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., –76, ¶¶ 19–21, –59 (App. 2014) (rejecting public policy argument that would impose duty on event organizers for portions of event outside their control).
  • Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “As a general matter, there is no duty to prevent a third person from causing physical harm to another unless the defendant stands in a special relationship with the third person or with the victim that gives the victim a right to protection.” Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 10, (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965)).
  • Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., -73, ¶¶ 9-10, -56 (App. 2014).
  • Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., , 472-75 ¶¶ 10-18, -58 (App. 2014) (citing cases); , 471-73 ¶¶ 13-23, -50 (App.2011) (citing cases); see also Monroe, 234 Ariz. at 157 -59 ¶¶ 5-11, 318 P.3d at 873-75 .
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 10, see also Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 355, 706 P.2d at 367 (owner or possessor of land/invitee); (tavern owner/patron), superseded by statute, A.R.S.