Cited by

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

117 citing documents.

Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(restating both reasonable inference and any inference tests).
DeCarlo v. MCSA, INC. 785 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
DeCarlo v. MCSA, INC. 785 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
orts the charges against them and that this conduct alone, which is authorized by the by-laws, cannot be characterized as “conduct unbecoming a member.” “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the losing party, with that party being given benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence.”
Chiara v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. 733 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1987
Chiara v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. 733 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1987
(litigants entitled to a “trial when there is the slightest doubt as to the essential facts”); see also Chernov v. St.
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pearce v. Stone 720 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pearce v. Stone 720 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Franzi v. Koedyker 758 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Franzi v. Koedyker 758 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Maake v. Ross Operating Valve Co. 717 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Maake v. Ross Operating Valve Co. 717 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
If, when viewed in this manner, reasonable men could reach different conclusions as to whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, the judgment must be reversed.”
Jeski v. American Express Co. 708 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Jeski v. American Express Co. 708 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DUTY TO WARN To succeed in establishing liability against the defendant State, it is well settled in Arizona that the plaintiff must prove the elements of an action for negligence which are “a duty owed to the plaintiff, a breach thereof and an injury proximately caused by the breach.”
Cook v. Johnston 688 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cook v. Johnston 688 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cook v. Great Western Bank & Trust 685 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cook v. Great Western Bank & Trust 685 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
237 P. 168, 172 (1925); , , , 19 McQuillin, supra, § 54.11, at 27 (3d ed. 1967); 63 C.J.S.
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Spelbring v. Pinal County 662 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Spelbring v. Pinal County 662 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
We find appellant’s , to support this contention misplaced.
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc. 652 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1982