Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., 536 P.2d 697.

27 citing documents.

The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
It suggests the Bennetts “presume The Salvation Army’s volunteers were its agents because their claims against The Salvation Army are based, in part, upon the actions of those volunteers.” Relying on Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., it also contends its volunteers were agents because they “submitted themselves to the direction and control of” the Salvation Army, with the “primary purpose” of serving it.
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶10 In addressing the issue of whether appellees were acting as school “employees” at the time of the accident, both the motion papers below and the parties’ briefs on appeal focused primarily on Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 (1958) and cases such as Santiago, P.2d 697 (1975), P.2d 1085 (App. 1988).
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Explained Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., -16 , -04 (1975)
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
In Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., , our supreme court stated: The two key elements for the determination of whether a gratuitous undertaking is part of the master-servant relationship are whether the actor has submitted himself to the directions and control of the one for whom the service is done and whether the primary p
Love v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 760 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Love v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 760 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Bao Thi Nguyen v. Phuc Thi Nguyen 746 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Bao Thi Nguyen v. Phuc Thi Nguyen 746 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
See generally Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., , Scottsdale Jaycees v. Superior Court, 17 Ariz.App.
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ehmke v. Hicks 715 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Ehmke v. Hicks 715 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Lerner v. Brettschneider, supra; , Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Maxwell v. Bell 591 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Maxwell v. Bell 591 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Circle K concedes that an employer in Arizona has a duty to provide his employees with a reasonably safe place to work, Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., , but urges adoption of the rule that liability for injury caused by the intervening criminal acts of third persons should not attach unless it is clearly shown that the employer in some manner greatly and unreasonably increased the risk of exposure to such acts without taking reasonable precautio
Glenn v. Imperial Trust 560 P.2d 423 Ariz. 1977
Glenn v. Imperial Trust 560 P.2d 423 Ariz. 1977
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.