Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wisener v. State, 598 P.2d 511.

117 citing documents.

Troxel v. Timberline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Troxel v. Timberline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
() (alteration in original).
Dolan v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dolan v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
5 AVITIA v. CRISIS PREPARATION, et al. Opinion of the Court Ariz. 560, 563-64, ¶ 7 (2018); (citing William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971); ).
Gruver v. Wild Western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gruver v. Wild Western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
To defeat summary judgment, the Gruvers “need only present probable facts from which the causal relationship reasonably may be inferred,” id., and need not “negate entirely the possibility that the defendant’s conduct was not a cause” of a plaintiff’s injury
Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hosp., Inc., (applying an increased risk of harm causation standard); (noting “there is liability if the result would not have occurred but for defendant’s conduct, even if that conduct contributed only a little to plaintiff’s injuries”); (applying a “substantial factor” causation standard); A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 9 (2007); (citing William L. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971); ).
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 9, 23, 1281-82 (App. 2009), 8 “The plaintiff does not need „to introduce evidence to establish that the negligence resulted in the injury or the death, but simply that the negligence increased the risk of injury or death.‟” Id.
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
This evidence must provide support for the jury’s “conclusion that it is more likely than not that [the] defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the result.”
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 504 , 667 P.2d at 204 (citing William L. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed.1971); , ).
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
we considered a claim against the State based upon injuries sustained when a driver swerved to avoid a cow that had entered a highway through a defect in control fences constructed by the State.
Natseway v. City of Tempe 909 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Natseway v. City of Tempe 909 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
To establish proximate cause, a plaintiff “need only present probable facts from which the causal relationship reasonably may be inferred.” Id.; , (stating that plaintiff need not negate entirely the possibility that defendant’s conduct was not a cause).
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(stating that the plaintiff need not negate entirely the possibility that the defendant’s conduct was not a cause).
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Transamerica Insurance v. Doe 840 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Transamerica Insurance v. Doe 840 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cooley v. Arizona Public Service Co. 839 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cooley v. Arizona Public Service Co. 839 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Hill-Shafer Partnership, 165 Ariz. at 472 , 799 P.2d at 813
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Hill-Shafer Partnership, 165 Ariz. at 472 , 799 P.2d at 813
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc., , Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , , (even if there is no factual dispute, where possible inferences
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Hill-Shafer Part., supra, at 472-73, 799 P.2d at 813-14
Creative Learning Systems, Inc. v. State 800 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Creative Learning Systems, Inc. v. State 800 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990