Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 742 P.2d 1382.

48 citing documents.

Lopez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lopez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Generally, a party may not challenge a discovery order directed to a nonparty witness, the right to object being reserved solely for the witness subpoenaed.”).
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
(concluding that a negligent supervision cause of action is protected by the anti-abrogation clause even though the action was first recognized in 1972); Franks v. U.S. Fid.
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D. 497 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D. 497 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Desert Valley v. Superior Court (Edison)
St. George v. Plimpton 384 P.3d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
St. George v. Plimpton 384 P.3d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(to allege an independent claim for negligent supervision, a plaintiff must establish the employer knew or should have known that the employee “was not competent to provide certain care,” and that the employer’s failure to supervise the employee caused injury).
Rice v. Brakel, M.D., Center for Neurosciences 310 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rice v. Brakel, M.D., Center for Neurosciences 310 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The trial court granted Patel’s motion to remand and, , , granted Patel’s motion to preclude statements he made in response to the Board’s investigation, including those in the SRI report, 1 finding such statements were privileged and could not be used in further grand jury proceedings.
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers 70 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers 70 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
See Church, 173 Ariz. at 346 , 842 P.2d at 1359 (`Since the composition of the court changed between the time that Humana Hospital [ , ] and Bryant were decided, and has changed against since Bryant , this question may still be an open one.').
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Hazine, supra; , (holding that art. 18, § 6 applied to negligent supervision claim even though the cause of action was not recognized until 1972).
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(noting the "overriding public interest in candid professional peer review”).
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
v. Superior Court, , (holding that art. 18, § 6 applies to negligent supervision claims although this cause of action was not recognized until 1972); Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guar.
Yuma Regional Medical Center v. Superior Court 852 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Yuma Regional Medical Center v. Superior Court 852 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The trial court commented that Samaritan, as soon as an incident is reported, signs up its “employees as ‘clients’ of the legal department of the hospital, does extensive interviews and summaries and thereby wraps this material in a mantle of peer review, attorney/client privilege and attorney work product” The court concluded that a , , indicates the Court must provide reasonable alternatives____ Where plaintiffs’ opportunity to prove [their] case is as effectively blocked as defendants’ theori
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
1954 , 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987); Humana Hospital *346 v. Superior Court
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 838 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 838 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
1954 , 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987)
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
1954 , 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987); Humana *530 , the most recent supreme court pronouncement is that the provisions apply only to actions recognized at common law at the time the constitution was adopted.
Dietz v. General Electric Co. 821 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1991
Dietz v. General Electric Co. 821 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1991
1954 , 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987); Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital, Magma Copper, , , Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 809 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1991
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 809 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1991
(citing 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2285, at 527 (McNaughton rev. 1961); 1 M. Udall & J. Livermore, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 71, at 123-26 (2d ed. 1982)).
John C. Lincoln Hospital & Health Center v. Superior Court 768 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
John C. Lincoln Hospital & Health Center v. Superior Court 768 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
wherein this court denied discovery on the basis of the statutory privileges involved here.