Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 919 P.2d 1381.

26 citing documents.

Hatch Development, LLC v. Solomon 377 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hatch Development, LLC v. Solomon 377 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, -18 (1996); see also INA Ins.
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-07 (App. 2011), citing Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 919
In Re Estate of King 269 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Estate of King 269 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 21 Persons protected by a statutory provision can waive that protection, Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, -16 , -87 (App.1996), unless “waiver is expressly or impliedly prohibited by the plain language of the statute,” ¶ 68
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, -16 , -87 (App.1996) (statutes enacted to protect individuals may nonetheless be waived by those individuals); McClellan Mortg.
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Rentco, 194 Ariz. *430 300, 302, ¶ 10, (“The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that is waived unless raised.”); Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, , (statutes enacted to protect individuals may nonetheless be waived by those individuals); McClellan Mortg.
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We have permitted the waiver of statutory rights by their intended beneficiaries in many circumstances, Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, -16 , -87 (App.1996) (listing cases), though a statutory right may not be waived where waiver is expressly or impliedly prohibited by the plain language of the statute.
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, , (quoting INA, 150 Ariz. at 255 , 722 P.2d at 982 ).
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See, e.g., Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, , (recognizing alternate theories of common-law indemnity, including a distinction between active and passive tortfeasors, principles of implied contract, and theories arising from a principal/agent relationship).
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶ 7 “Under the common law doctrine of joint and several liability, if two or more actors together caused an injury to the victim, each was liable for the full amount of the victim’s injuries.” Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP
Western Agricultural Insurance v. Chrysler Corp. 6 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Western Agricultural Insurance v. Chrysler Corp. 6 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“It permits one defendant to shift the entire loss to one who more justly deserves it.” Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, , (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 51, at 344 (5th ed.1984)) (emphasis added).
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
6 ¶21 Finally, the appellees- argue that their position is directly supported by our recent decision in Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP
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
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, -15 , -86 (App.1996)