Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hovatter v. Shell Oil Company, 529 P.2d 224.

28 citing documents.

Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Cohen v. Maricopa County 263 P.3d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cohen v. Maricopa County 263 P.3d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(noting that “where the master’s liability is based completely on the negligent acts of his servant, a judgment on the merits in favor of the servant relieves the master of liability” and also recognizing that a dismissal with prejudice operates as a dismissal on the merits); but see A.
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Comm’n, , , 577 P.2d, 717, 722 (1978); , Southwestern Freight Lines, -67 , , ).
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(reviewing liability of one defendant "under the doctrine of respondeat superior or any other theory reasonably framed by the pleadings" before affirming summary judgment).
Monthofer Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Allen 943 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Monthofer Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Allen 943 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, -27 , -26 (1974) (covenant not to sue alleged servant does not negate his liability so as to release alleged master); -36 , -26 (1937) (covenant not to sue one joint tortfeasor does not constitute a release, which otherwise w
Hall v. Schulte 836 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hall v. Schulte 836 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-27 , -26 (1974); -05 , -02 (App.1977).
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
The covenant at issue in this case expressly reserves Blocher’s “[rjights of action, claims, and demands against all other firms and persons other than covenantee.” In Arizona, “[cjovenants not to sue should be construed in harmony with the intent of the parties.”
Matheny v. Gila County 710 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Matheny v. Gila County 710 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
“Appellate courts will often utilize the doctrine to add facts necessary to affirm the trial court.” Udall & Livermore, Law of Evidence, § 151 (2d ed.1982), , , Southwestern Freight Lines
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Howard v. Associated Grocers 601 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1979
Howard v. Associated Grocers 601 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1979
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Blomfield 562 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Blomfield 562 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
: “We agree with the opinion expressed in Holcomb v. Flaving, 62 Ill.App.2d 245 , 210 N.E.2d 565 (1965): ‘In our opinion it matters greatly how the servant’s liability was extinguished.
Fry v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fry v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
“The characteristic of an independent contractor is that he is independent of his employer in the manner of achieving the result for which he has been contracted; i. e., he represents the will of his employer only as to the result of his work and not as to the means by which it is accomplished.”