Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co., 875 P.2d 1327.

27 citing documents.

Slater v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Slater v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 565, ¶ 14 (citing 4 from contract Diaz v. Phx.
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
(noting a duty exists based on the employer–employee special relationship); Second Restatement § 314B (same).
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
See, , (stating the "general rule is that absent a special relationship ...
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(recognizing distinction between nonfeasance and misfeaseance in determining whether a duty may exist).
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County 943 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County 943 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Appellees cite this court’s comments that ACRA “is generally similar in both intent and purpose to the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” , , 602 n. 4, , 835 n. 4 (App.1993)
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Francini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 937 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Francini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 937 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(stating that the issue of whether a person is handicapped under the ACRA is a question of fact in each case).
Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Followed Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by