Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles, 564 P.2d 1227.

113 citing documents.

HEAD v. MESA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
HEAD v. MESA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
of Pardons & Paroles, –68 (1977) (immunity ceases “only for the grossly negligent or reckless” conduct); Garibay v. Johnson in and for Cnty.
Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Perez v. Patterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Patterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of Pardons & Paroles, -68 (1977) (Parole board members can be liable “only for [their] grossly negligent or reckless” conduct and are immune “from suit for reasonable decisions.”).
Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Pardons & Paroles, -68 (1977) (holding that members of the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles were liable “only for the grossly negligent or reckless release of a highly dangerous prisoner” but enjoyed “freedom from suit for reasonable decisions”).
Stair v. Maricopa 429 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stair v. Maricopa 429 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Pardons & Paroles, -68 (1977); Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., -73, ¶ 10 (App. 2014); Second Restatement §§ 315, 316, 317, 319.
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Similarly, this Court held that a state agency 22 QUIROZ V. ALCOA Opinion of the Court assumed a duty, pursuant to a statute, to protect the public from highly dangerous persons released from prison custody.
Griggs v. Oasis Adoption Services, Inc. 383 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Griggs v. Oasis Adoption Services, Inc. 383 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Pardons and Paroles, –66 (1977) (rejecting absolute immunity for parole board members in favor of qualified immunity).
Emerson v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Emerson v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The public policy reasons for judicial immunity have been discussed in Pierson, 386 U.S. at 554, Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347-354 (1871), -65 (1977).
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
of Pardons & Paroles, , , (1977)).
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
of Pardons & Paroles, P.2d 6 1227 (1977).
Goddard v. Fields 150 P.3d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Did the trial court err in failing to find a , and 2.
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
of Pardons & Paroles, P.2d 1227 (1977).
Espinoza v. Schulenburg 129 P.3d 937 Ariz. 2006
Espinoza v. Schulenburg 129 P.3d 937 Ariz. 2006
of Pardons & Paroles, P.2d 1227 (1977).
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Fields 75 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Fields 75 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
of Pardons and Paroles, , cited by the City to support its position, does not mandate a different result.
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Appellants cite Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles, , for the proposition that a custodian must take affirmative measures to avoid increasing danger to third persons from the known conduct of persons under the custodian’s control.
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich 52 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich 52 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Of Pardons & Paroles, , ).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
of Pardons & Paroles, , (action against state could not proceed because plaintiff had not first filed claim against agency); , 115 ¶ 15, , 124 ¶ 15 (App.2000) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiffs who failed to serve notice of tort claim
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
of Pardons & Paroles
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
of Pardons & Paroles
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
Explaining the distinction between judicial and administrative functions, this court, in Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles, , stated that “policy reasons for official [administrative] immunity are much weaker than for judicial immunity.” Moreover, legislative immunity is supported by similar public policy equally as compelling as that supporting judicial immunity.
Fidelty Security Life Insurance v. State 935 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
of Pardons & Paroles
Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
of Pardons and Paroles, P.2d 1227 (1977), our supreme court concluded that parole board members were entitled to qualified but not absolute immunity in connection with their decisions to release prisoners on parole.