Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Green Acres Trust v. London, 688 P.2d 617.

104 citing documents.

Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
361 ¶ 7, (judicial proceedings); , (legislative or executive proceedings); , (litigators); , (required by law).
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
(outlining the privilege); Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 57 cmt.
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
For those reasons plus ADOR’s failure to identify any prejudice that it suffered as a result of the delay, -17 , -63 (App.1983), approved in part and vacated in part, , we too reject ADOR’s contention that Capitol failed to move for relief from judgment within a reasonable time.
RECORP PARTNERS v. Gust Rosenfeld, PLC 8 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
RECORP PARTNERS v. Gust Rosenfeld, PLC 8 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 6 Appellees moved for dismissal of the claims against them, contending that their statements were absolutely privileged under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (1977)
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
While a qualified privilege protects the speaker only for those statements made in good faith, an absolute privilege is much broader, protecting the speaker regardless of his “motive, purpose, or reasonableness.”
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
1 In reaching that conclusion, , and language in Lewis which quoted from the California case of Norton v. Hines, 49 Cal.App.3d 917 , 123 Cal.Rptr.
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Because absolute immunity is related to a defendant’s status, , usually there are limited factual determinations necessary to resolve the issue.
Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
plaintiffs brought a defamation action against defendants and their attorneys based on oral and written statements published during a press conference preliminary to the initiation of a class action against plaintiffs.
Ashton-Blair v. Merrill 928 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ashton-Blair v. Merrill 928 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
613 n. 1, , 621 n. 1 (1984).
Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Accordingly, absolute privileges allow certain persons, because of their special position or status, to “be as free as possible from fear that their actions in that position might have an adverse effect upon their own personal interest.”
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
“Once an immunity defense has been raised properly, the court determines whether defendants are entitled to immunity.”
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , Todd v. Cox, 20 Ariz.App.
Miller v. Servicemaster by Rees 851 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Miller v. Servicemaster by Rees 851 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
see also Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 594, 596 (1977).
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cahn v. Fisher 805 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Cahn v. Fisher 805 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
vacated in part on other grounds
London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
However, we have previously held that the defense of immunity “may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss, if the facts establishing the occasion for the privilege 1 appear in the pleadings.” , (footnote added); see also Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, 20 Ariz.App.
Hirsch v. Cooper 737 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hirsch v. Cooper 737 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Absolute privileges, commonly associated with defamation actions, recognize that “ ‘conduct which otherwise would be actionable is to escape liability because the defendant is acting in furtherance of some interest of social importance, which is entitled to protection.’ ” , (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 114, p. 776 (footnote omitted)).
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 724 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1986
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 724 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1986
Of course, the common law also recognized a number of privileges, in some cases allowing recovery only upon a showing of “malice in fact.” Broking, 76 Ariz. at 338 , 264 P.2d at 416