DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Preuss v. Sambo's of Arizona, Inc., 635 P.2d 1210.

31 citing documents.

  • Perez v. Circle K Ariz. 2025
  • Perez v. Circle K Ariz. 2025
    “The law is clear in Arizona that a proprietor of a business is under an affirmative duty to make the premises reasonably safe for use by invitees.” Tribe, 133 Ariz. at 519; see also Chiara v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., Inc., Nicoletti, 131 Ariz. at 143; Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc., Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  • Metcalf v. Montecito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Metcalf v. Montecito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc.
  • Gillis v. Northsand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Gillis v. Northsand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶15 Although not an insurer of the safety of the patio, Sandbar had “an affirmative duty to make and keep [its] premises reasonably safe for customers.” Contreras v. Walgreens Drug Store No. 3837, ¶ 7 (App. 2006); accord Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc., (noting business “is not an insurer of their safety and is not required to keep the premises absolutely safe”).
  • Ager v. a Better Today Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ager v. a Better Today Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc., Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, cmt.
  • Shaver v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Shaver v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Pruess v. Sambo’s of Ariz. Inc., Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, comment d (negligence is the failure to warn of or correct an unreasonably dangerous condition).
  • Arpaio v. Hines Gs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Arpaio v. Hines Gs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc.
  • David Contreras, Sr. v. Walgreens Drug Store 3837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • David Contreras, Sr. v. Walgreens Drug Store 3837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    In slip-and-fall cases, however, “the mere occurrence of a fall on the business premises is insufficient to prove negligence on the part of the proprietor.” Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc.
  • Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    A finding on a party’s actual or constructive knowledge cannot be based on “sheer speculation,” nor is it proper “to permit the jury to draw speculative inferences which [are] not based on probative facts.” see also Preuss v. Sambo’s of Ariz., Inc., (trial court erred in denying motion for directed verdict when evidence did not support jury’s speculative finding that defendant had known or should have known of alleged defect).
  • Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    See Preuss v. Sambo’s of Arizona
  • Borota v. University Medical Center 861 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Borota v. University Medical Center 861 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    As a business open to the public, UMC is under a duty to keep its premises reasonably safe for invitees, Preuss v. Sambo’s of Arizona, Inc., , *396 but it is not an insurer of their safety.
  • Cooley v. Arizona Public Service Co. 839 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Dulles v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 810 P.2d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Dulles v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 810 P.2d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    We do not believe that an analysis of either the notice ■ theories, Preuss v. Sambo’s of Arizona, Inc., , Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets, 4 Ariz.App.
  • Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Preuss v. Sambo’s of Arizona, Inc.
  • 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
    Preuss v. Sambo’s of Arizona, Inc.
  • Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • 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 believe that this argument has been answered in Preuss v. Sambo’s of Arizona, Inc., , where the court said: “With respect to the notice requirement, the notice must be of the defect itself which occasioned the injury, and not merely of conditions naturally productive of that defect and subsequently in fact producing it.