Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Beach v. City of Phoenix, 667 P.2d 1316.

81 citing documents.

Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990
at 357-58 , 706 P.2d at 369-70 ; Beach v. City of Phoe *545 nix
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
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
the supreme court rejected the lower court’s analogy to common law duties of a landowner, holding that streets are held in trust by a municipality for the public, and that its duty derives therefrom.
Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1989
Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1989
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Beach v. City of *62 Phoenix
Barnes v. City of Tucson 760 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Barnes v. City of Tucson 760 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
made it clear that Arizona does not apply those rules to municipalities in cases involving the public’s use of public streets and sidewalks.
Cohen v. Salt River Project 736 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cohen v. Salt River Project 736 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Bach v. State 730 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bach v. State 730 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
v. Westinghouse, , , 504, see also Wade at 556, 566-69.
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The duty extends to removing obstructions and hazards, , and the city must warn of known dangerous conditions on the streets.
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1984
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1984
Many tort decisions exhibit an unfortunate tendency to confuse the concepts of “duty” and standard of conduct and to argue that the city is, or is not, under a duty to post warning signs (see City of *52 , ), remove obstructions from the road or sidewalks ( , ), install traffic control devices (see Rodgers v. Ray, 10 Ariz.App.
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
In conclusion, as to this issue
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Coburn v. City of Tucson 691 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The appellants correctly state well established Arizona law to the effect that the city has a duty to keep its streets reasonably safe for travel, , that this duty extends to removing obstructions and hazards, , and that the city must give warning of known dangerous conditions on the streets