Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Huebner v. Deuchle, 514 P.2d 470.

44 citing documents.

Faas v. Sunland Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Faas v. Sunland Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See DeCamacho, 234 Ariz. at 24-25, ¶¶ 24-27 (statutory beneficiary independently holds the wrongful death claim); -50 (1973); A.R.S.
Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 336 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 336 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 25 A wrongful-death claim is “an original and distinct claim for the damages sustained by named statutory benefieiaries[; i]t is not derived from nor is it a continuation of claims which formerly existed in a decedent.” -50 , -71 (1973).
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Our supreme court has held that ‘‘[tjhe common law, so far as it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, the constitution or laws of this state, or established customs of the people of this state, was adopted by the Legislature and is 'the rule of decision in all courts of this state.’ ” , (citation omitted) (declining to permit a wrongful death action against the decedent’s husband without express statutory authority because of the common law interspousal tort immunity).
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Such an analysis is unnecessary, however, because our supreme court some time ago found that the wrongful death statute “confers an original and distinct claim for the damages sustained by named statutory beneficiaries.” -50 , -71 (1973).
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
Knipp v. Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Ins. 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Knipp v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Knipp v. Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Ins. 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Knipp v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
confers an original and distinct claim for the damages sustained by named statutory beneficiaries.” , (emphasis added).
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
our supreme court stated that a wrongful death claim under A.R.S.
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
See, , Estate of Lister, , 195 *471 P. 1113 (1921).
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Alley v. Dorame 613 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Followed Alley v. Dorame 613 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 548 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1976
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 548 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1976
Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc.
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
disposes of appellant’s contention.
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 536 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 536 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Kilmer v. Hicks 529 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Kilmer v. Hicks 529 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
The common law, so far as it is not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, the constitution or laws of this state, or established customs of the people of this state, was adopted by the legislature and is “the rule of decision in all courts of this state.”
Burns v. Burns 526 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1974
Burns v. Burns 526 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1974
More recently, , we held that since the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity would not have permitted an action by a wife against her husband for her injuries sustained during the marriage, the wife’s estate could not maintain an action against the husband under our wrongful death statute, § 12-611 A.R.S.
DeLozier v. Smith 524 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
DeLozier v. Smith 524 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
the court held that since the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity barred an action by a wife against her husband for her injuries during her lifetime, a wrongful death action could not be maintained against her husband.
DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
See, , Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car-System, Inc.