Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ontiveros v. Borak, 667 P.2d 200.

328 citing documents.

Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 991 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 991 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In determining the duty issue, the court must examine whether the defendant has an obligation to the plaintiff, see id', at 31, 893 P.2d at 31 , keeping in mind that duty is “ ‘an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’ ” , (quoting W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 42, at 324-27 (4th ed.1971)).
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
of Regents, , (recognizing public policy, societal and technological changes as factors in evolution of tort law)
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
(citing William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts, § 53, at 324-27 (4th ed.1971)).
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
at 385 , 831 P.2d at 384 (citing Hamman, 161 Ariz. at 64 , 775 P.2d at 1128 , , ).
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In addition, to be a proximate cause of the accident, FCCI’s conduct “need have contributed only slightly to the injury.” , , (App.1996)
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Duty essentially is “ ‘an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’ ” , quoting W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts, § 42 at 324-27 (4th ed. 1971).
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
This court held "that section 4-312(B) unconstitutionally abrogates the general negligence cause of action recognized in Ontiveros [v. Borak, , ], contrary to article 18, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution."
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
of Regents, -54 , -41 (1994)
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
This court held “that section 4-312(B) unconstitutionally abrogates the general negligence cause of action recognized in Ontiveros [v. Borak, , ], contrary to article 18, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.” Id., 184 Ariz. at 190 , 908 P.2d at 4 .
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Duty “arises out of the recognition that relations between individuals may impose upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other.”
Young Through Young v. Dfw Corp. 908 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Young Through Young v. Dfw Corp. 908 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Young claims that the statute violates article 18, section 6
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
A. Legislative Background “[T]he rule of nonliability for tavern owners [was] the common law in Arizona.” , see
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Callender v. MCO PROPERTIES 885 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Callender v. MCO PROPERTIES 885 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
both of which pre-dated enactment of A.R.S.
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by