Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744.

170 citing documents.

In Re Cesar R. 4 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
In Re Cesar R. 4 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Fund I v. Town of Surprise, , ( , ).
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In rejecting a similar argument in another equal protection challenge to a statute abrogating the collateral source rule in medical malpractice cases, our supreme court said, “The legislature is entitled to proceed ‘one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.’ ” , quoting Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483, 489 , 75 S.Ct.
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(“[I]f the right to sue is granted, by § 31 of Article 2 the legislature cannot place a limitation upon the recovery such as is found in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”); , (statutory abolition of collateral source evidentiary rule for medical malpractice cases does not violate article 2, § 31).
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
1047, 1055-56 , 51 L.Ed.2d 313 (1977)
Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
6 Hunter justifies the expert affidavit requirement as a device to screen out frivolous or groundless claims, and defends its constitutionality by invoking a
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
which had applied the rational basis test to other provisions of the same act.
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
-85 , -51 (1977) (holding that statute abolishing collateral source rule in medical malpractice does not unconstitutionally limit recovery).
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
cf. Massachusetts Nurses, 465 N.E.2d at 1244 n. 19 (administrative regulation tested by same standards applied to statutes).
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Toto v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, , cf. Massachusetts Nurses, 465 N.E.2d at 1244 n. 19 (administrative regulation tested by same standards applied to statutes).
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 869 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 869 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the court rejected the argument that the abolition of the collateral source rule, which had precluded the introduction of evidence of recovery from sources other than the defendant, was an impermissible limitation on the right to recover damages.
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise 800 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1990
Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise 800 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Medical Malpractice Act of 1976, ch. 1 (1st Spec.Sess.), 1976 Ariz.Laws 989
State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by