Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated, 550 P.2d 1065.

80 citing documents.

Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
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
Byrns v. Riddel, Incorporated
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
See Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated
Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home 619 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1980
Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home 619 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Jackson v. H. H. Robertson Company, Inc., , Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 601 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 601 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Amburgey v. Holan Division of Ohio Brass Co. 606 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Amburgey v. Holan Division of Ohio Brass Co. 606 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated
Brady v. Melody Homes Manufacturer 589 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Brady v. Melody Homes Manufacturer 589 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , our Supreme Court expressly held that proof of an “unreasonably dangerous product” is a necessary element in a products liability claim.
Vineyard v. Empire MacH. Co., Inc. 581 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Vineyard v. Empire MacH. Co., Inc. 581 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The main thrust of Vineyard’s arguments on appeal is based on this reasoning: that the Supreme Court’s decision in Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , rejects the distinction between latent and patent defects for the purpose of imposing strict tort liability; that since the trial court allegedly relied upon this distinction as expressed in Maas v. Dreher, 10 Ariz.App.
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
This section applies not only to sellers of defective unreasonably dangerous products, see O. S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, supra, but also to manufacturers of such products, see Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rogers v. Unimac Company, Inc., , Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated, , Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (1965).
Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
If, considering all the facts and circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood that reasonable men may reach different conclusions, the question of fact in issue is to be decided by the jury.” Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Rogers v. Unimac Co., Inc. 565 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
Rogers v. Unimac Co., Inc. 565 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
Co., , Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , we note the following facts necessary for a determination of this matter.
Embry v. General Motors Corp. 565 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Embry v. General Motors Corp. 565 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
This question was answered adversely to appellant’s position in the case of Byrns v. *438 Riddell, Incorporated