Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fernandez v. Romo, 646 P.2d 878.

44 citing documents.

ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
abrog’d on other grounds
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(recognizing public policy of preserving marriage).
Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
“Just as the common law is court-made law based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, so can the common law be changed by the court when conditions and circumstances change.”
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
“Just as the common law is court-made law based on the circumstances and conditions of the time, so can the common law be changed by the court when conditions and circumstances change.” Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 11 n.21, n.21 (1986) ( ); see also Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified Sch.
Heath v. Kiger 158 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Heath v. Kiger 158 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 20 Moreover, “[w]hen Arizona became a state, it adopted the common law of England as the ‘rule of decision’ in our courts.”
State v. McCann 21 P.3d 845 Ariz. 2001
State v. McCann 21 P.3d 845 Ariz. 2001
(stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); -21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same).
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 15 Theresa contends that because our supreme court subsequently abolished inter-spousal immunity, , the authority of Boivslaugh has been eroded.
State v. McCann 3 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2000
State v. McCann 3 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2000
(stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); -21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same).
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
*517 (rejecting the doctrine of lex loci delicti and adopting the “most significant relationship” theory of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971)), overruled on other grounds
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971); -65 , -57 (1968) (“The local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort.”), overruled on other grounds
Lucero v. Valdez 884 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lucero v. Valdez 884 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
-05 , -05 (1983); , see also State Tax Comm’n v. Ryan-Evans Drug Stores, , (“The true purpose of the doctrine of stare decisis is thwarted when precedent is unrealistic or based on poor reasoning or expediency.”).
Hoeller v. Riverside Resort Hotel 820 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hoeller v. Riverside Resort Hotel 820 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- , overruled on other grounds, , the Arizona Supreme Court adopted the “grouping of contacts” or “most significant relationship” approach of the 1968 draft of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as the rule for determining choice of law issues in multi-state tort litigation.
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp. 774 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1989
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp. 774 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1989
(abrogating doctrine of inter-spousal tort immunity in automobile accident case); Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. *480 86, 88, (rejecting parental immunity in automobile accident case).
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
See , Delozier v. Smith, 22 Ariz.App.
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
we find that the trial court did err.
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Spillios v. Green 671 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
is not applicable to the Greens' action for wrongful death.
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982