Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., 652 P.2d 1040.

75 citing documents.

Perez v. Circle K Ariz. 2025
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. 2025
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Perez v. Patterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Patterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Seguridad v. Wheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Seguridad v. Wheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Summary judgment is generally not appropriate in negligence actions, but will be granted when the record shows “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Ariz. R. Civ.
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶8 To support her claim, Perez argues that she was a business invitee, meaning Circle K owed “‘an affirmative duty’ to use reasonable care to make the premises safe for [her] use.” Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 355 (quoting Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., ).
Pacheco v. Coffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Pacheco v. Coffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Summary judgment is generally not appropriate in negligence actions, Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., but will be granted when the record shows “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ.
Pacific Office v. Csg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pacific Office v. Csg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“Summary judgment is inappropriate 8 PACIFIC OFFICE v. CSG Decision of the Court where founded on a disputed inference drawn from an undisputed fact.”).
Shaver v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Shaver v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
in which the court reversed summary judgment against a distracted patron who fell from a raised concrete pad.
Arpaio v. Hines Gs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Arpaio v. Hines Gs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
A possessor of land, however, “is not ordinarily found negligent for injuries to those invitees from conditions which are open and obvious, nor for those which are known to the invitee.” Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 356 (citing Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., ).
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
However, “a possessor of land ‘is under an affirmative duty' to use reasonable care to make the premises safe for use by invitees.” , ( , ).
Fehribach v. Smith 22 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fehribach v. Smith 22 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“Arizona recognizes that a possessor of land ‘is under an affirmative duty1 to use reasonable care to make the premises safe for use by invitees.” Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 355 , 706 P.2d at 367 ( , ).
Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“Where reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to the existence of a genuine issue, summary judgment should not be granted.”
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
As owners and operators of the mall with control over its parking lots, the mall defendants had “an affirmative duty to make the premises reasonably safe for use by invitees.”
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
“Summary judgment is generally not appropriate in negligence actions.” Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc.
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Where reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to the existence of a genuine issue, summary judgment should not be granted.” Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc.
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc.
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
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc.
Certainteed Corp. v. United Pacific Insurance 762 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Certainteed Corp. v. United Pacific Insurance 762 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
as a matter of law the moving party is entitled to judgment.” Tribe v. Shell Oil Company, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Shea 742 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Shea 742 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987