Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 842 P.2d 1355.

71 citing documents.

Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (“[t]here is no legislative history relating to [the section 12-2506(D) ] exceptions----”).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-46 , -62 (1986) (interpreting statutory provision as supplementing rather than conflicting with procedural rule); , (adopting supplementary statutory provision that did not unreasonably limit or hamper judicial system); Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry, , (construing statute as harmonious with rules).
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , the *232 plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of UCATA’s abolition of joint and several liability in favor of comparative negligence, in part on equal protection grounds.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A court, under the rational basis test, may consider “either the actual basis on which the legislature acted or any hypothetical basis on which it might have acted.” Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (quoting Carr v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 758 F.Supp.
State v. Nguyen 912 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nguyen 912 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Compare Ruth, 107 Ariz. at 576, 490 P.2d at 832 (upholding validity of the statute giving the Industrial Commission a lien on the amount recovered by an injured worker exercising the option to sue a third-party tortfeasor), and Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , , (invalidating under article 2, section 31 a statute limiting the liability of an employee for injury inflicted on a co-employee to the amount allowed by compensation benefits).
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., Inc., , *474 (1988) ; Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
See, e.g., Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., -46 , -59 (App.1992); Richard E. Gordon, Note, Schwab v. Matley: The Constitutionality of the Legislative Attempt to Limit Dramshop Liability in Arizona, 33 Ariz.L.Rev.
Neil v. Kavena 859 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Neil v. Kavena 859 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (statute abrogating joint and several liability constitutional; a party has no vested right in a particular remedy or mode of procedure).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by