Cited by

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

115 citing documents.

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.
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
of Pardons & Paroles, -66 , -33 (1977).
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
of Pardons & Paroles
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
of Pardons & Paroles, , the supreme court applied § 319 and held that the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles owes a duty to individual members of the public when deciding whether to release a dangerous prisoner.
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
The state cites our case of Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles, , as dispositive of this issue.
Henke v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Henke v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
of Pardons & Paroles
Pritchard v. State 778 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pritchard v. State 778 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Markowitz; Ryan; Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
of Pardons and Paroles, -65 , -32 (1977) (discussing various rationales for judicial and official immunity); Schuck, Suing Our Servants: The Court, Congress, and the Liability of Public Officials for Damages, 1980 SUP.CT.REV.
Cooper v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 717 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1986
Cooper v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 717 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1986
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & *186 Paroles
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 690 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1984
Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 690 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1984
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Brooks, 23 Ariz.App.
Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 690 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 690 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
1335 at 1338 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 at 1440 (1959).” Although the immunity traditionally granted public officials has been diminished by recent Arizona case law, , , , judicial immunity has remained unscathed.
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Brooks, 23 Ariz.App.
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 673 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 673 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
of Pardons & Paroles
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
We note that this court in Cady interpreted the “narrowing” of the public duty to a , as follows: “The basis of this ‘narrowing’ according to the court was that [ , ] dealt with a failure to act (act of omission) while the Board of Pardons and Paroles performed an affirmative act in releasing the dangerous parolee (an ac
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
which involved a parolee who was alleged to have been released on parole in a grossly negligent manner and who subsequently killed Mr. Grimm during a robbery of a tavern.
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
of Pardons & Paroles, , that, “[i]t is black letter tort law that while inaction is not normally a basis for liability, negligent performance of a duty voluntarily undertaken may be a basis for liability.” Second, we note that in the' Chernov decision, there was a specific showing of reliance on the traffic
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
(duty of Parole Board narrowed to an individual one by assumption of control by Board over dangerous parolee).
Oleszczuk v. State 604 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1979
Oleszczuk v. State 604 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1979
a majority of this court held that the State Board of Pardons and Paroles could be liable to an individual for the grossly negligent or reckless release of a highly dangerous prisoner.