Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Solomon v. Harman, 489 P.2d 236.

37 citing documents.

Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“The right of action for wrongful death is purely statutory and the action must be brought in the names of the persons to whom the right is given by statute.”
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“‘The right of action for wrongful death is purely statutory and the action must be brought in the names of the persons to whom the right is given by statute.’”
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
is a beneficiary only if none of those named beneficiaries survivefs].”’ Bowslaugh, 126 Ariz. at 518 , 617 P.2d at 26
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
“The right of action for wrongful death is purely statutory and the action must be brought in the names of the persons to whom the right is given by statute.” Solomon v. Harman, 107 Ariz; 426, 428
Marriage of Fenn v. Fenn 847 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marriage of Fenn v. Fenn 847 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(foster parents); , (grandparents); , (step-parents).
Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that foster parents could not maintain a wrongful death action for the death of a foster child.
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Sentry Insurance v. Superior Court 753 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Sentry Insurance v. Superior Court 753 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Katz v. Filandro 739 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Katz v. Filandro 739 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
citing Barragan v. Superior Court, 12 Ariz.App.
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Bryan v. Bryan 645 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
See, , (foster parents not entitled to recover under wrongful death statute despite claimed in loco parentis relationship with deceased child); , 140 P. 825 (1914) (treating in loco parentis “parent” as the law would a natural parent and denying recovery of amounts expended for
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1979
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1979
-31 , -41 (1971), we had occasion to interpret this same subsection: “The estate, then, is a beneficiary only if none of those named beneficiaries survive.
Hurt v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 601 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1979
Hurt v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 601 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1979
The proceeds went to the estate to be distributed according to intestate succession.” Solo- *50
Watts v. State 566 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Hutton v. Davis 547 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Hutton v. Davis 547 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Gomez v. Leverton, 19 Ariz.App.
Gomez v. Leverton 509 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Gomez v. Leverton 509 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Barragan v. Superior Court of Pima County, 12 Ariz.App.
Walthers v. Kroll 492 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walthers v. Kroll 492 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972