Cited by

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

328 citing documents.

Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
On appeal, Defendants noted that Arizona first recognized a cause of action against a seller of alcohol in this court’s 1983 , , , .
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
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 reasoni
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 838 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 838 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
the supreme court abolished the common law doctrine of tavern owner nonliability and held that tavern owners and other licensed sellers in Arizona will be under a duty of care and may be held liable when they sell liquor to an intoxicated patron or customer under circumstances where the licensee
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Mulcahy v. Damron 816 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Mulcahy v. Damron 816 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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
(“[A]s far as causation-in-fact is concerned, the general rule is that a defendant may be held liable if his conduct contributed to the result and if that result would not have occurred ‘but for’ defendant’s conduct.”).
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
citing W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts, § 30 at 143 (4th ed. 1971).
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
Easter v. Percy 810 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Easter v. Percy 810 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
“The defendant’s act or omission need not be a ‘large’ or ‘abundant’ cause of the injury; even if defendant’s conduct contributes ‘only a little’ to plaintiff’s damages, liability exists if the damages would not have occurred but for that conduct.”
Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
“Inherent in the common law is a dynamic principle which allows it to grow and to tailor itself to meet changing needs.” , quoting Douglas, Stare Decisis, 49 Colum.L.Rev.
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 804 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 804 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 796 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1990
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 796 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1990
Bruce v. Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc. 801 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Schwab v. Matley 793 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1990
Schwab v. Matley 793 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1990
In 1983, we disapproved of Collier and Pratt , holding that the “common law doctrine of tavern owner non-liability is abolished in Arizona.” 521 , 221 (1983)
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990