Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crum v. Superior Court, 922 P.2d 316.

27 citing documents.

Simmons v. Temple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Simmons v. Temple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
I. Damages Claims ¶8 Before suing a public employee for damages arising from conduct committed within the course and scope of her employment, a claimant must strictly comply with the notice of claim statute, Yahweh, 243 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 12.
Hendershott v. Babeu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hendershott v. Babeu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The notice of claim statute requires notice be given to “both the employee individually and to his employer.” ().
City of Phoenix v. Elgin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
City of Phoenix v. Elgin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 6, –52, –17 (App. 1996).
Backus v. State 204 P.3d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Backus v. State 204 P.3d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 12-821.01(A) is a mandatory and essential prerequisite to maintaining an action against a public employee); , (holding that failure to include all claims and settlement amount in notice letter would bar claim).
Haab v. County of Maricopa 191 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Haab v. County of Maricopa 191 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See, -53, -18 (App. 1996).5 To interpret § 12-821 to encompass acts outside an employee’s scope of employment would be inconsistent with those decisions.
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Id.; -88, ¶ 7 , -28 (App.2005) (compliance with notice of claim statute mandatory and essential prerequisite to maintaining an action against a public employee); , (failure to include all claims and settlement amount in notice letter bars claim); , (State cannot be sued except upon its own terms and conditions.).
Harris, Wilson, Angel Team Home Care v. Cochise Health Systems Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Harris, Wilson, Angel Team Home Care v. Cochise Health Systems Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
§ 12-821.01, did not apply because it did not allege in its complaint that Pederson acted “within the course and scope of her employment.” (claimant must give notice of claim to public employee when complained-of conduct committed “within the course and scope of employment”).
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
P.2d 316 (App. 1996) (failure to include all claims and settlement amount in notice letter bars claim); Tyron v. Avra Valley Fire Dist., 659 F. Supp. 283 (D. Ariz. 1986); P.2d 1097 (1941) (state cannot be sued except upon its own terms and conditions).
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Martineau, 207 Ariz. at 335 -37 ¶¶ 18-24, 86 P.3d at 915-17 (monetary damages); 3 Crum v. Superior Court (Cutler), -53 , -18 (App.1996) (course and scope of employment).
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Crum v. Superior Court (Cutler), , (§ 12-821.01(A)); Norcor of Am.
Hernandez v. State 52 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2002
Andress v. City of Chandler 7 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Andress v. City of Chandler 7 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The purpose of a notice of claim “is to allow the public employee and his employer to investigate and assess their liability, to permit the possibility of settlement prior to litigation and to assist the public entity in financial planning and budgeting.”
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997