Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961.

186 citing documents.

Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Co., -89 , -67 (1995); , 76 n. 6, , 968 n. 6 (1984); Kowske v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., , Mayer v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 14 Ariz.App.
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Arizona courts have applied the discovery rule to claims of malpractice, , *20 Mayer ; products liability, Anson ; and recently breach of contract, Gust, Rosenfeld &amp
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Church, 173 Ariz. at 349 , 842 P.2d at 1362 .
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
This test “upholds legislative regulation which imposes burdens on one class but not another so long as (1) the court can find some legitimate state interest to be served by the legislation and (2) the facts permit the court to conclude that the legislative classification rationally furthers the state’s legitimate interest.” , -71 (1984); see also Big D, 163 Ariz. at 566 , 789 P.2d at 1067 .
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
A statute abrogates a cause of action if it “bars a cause of action before it [can] legitimately be brought.” , (-75 , -67 (1984)).
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
It represents a “fundamental guarantfy] to the people of Arizona,” intended “to have broad sweep to protect all injured persons.” , 80 n. 9, , 972 n. 9 (1984).
Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1994
Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Industrial Comm’n v. Pressley, , , Boswell, , ; Hazine, , .
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Barrio, 143 Ariz. at 107 , 692 P.2d at 286 ; -75 , -67 (1984) (finding abrogation rather than regulation where a statute “bars a cause of action before it [can] legitimately be brought”).
Crerand v. State 859 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crerand v. State 859 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The test “upholds legislative regulation which imposes burdens on one class but not another so long as (1) the court can find some legitimate state interest to be served by the legislation and (2) the facts permit the court to conclude that the legislative classification rationally furthers the state’s legitimate interest.” , (citations omitted).
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kowske v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 863 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Kowske v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 863 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
76 n. 6, , 968 n. 6 (1984).
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(medical malpractice); , (legal malpractice); Lawhon v. L.B.J.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Moreover, such an implication would be inconsistent with the very different purposes of the two sections; § 6 being to preclude the abrogation of common law actions in existence at the time the Arizona Constitution was adopted, , and § 5 being to preserve the procedural guarantee that juries shall be the sole arbiters of the effect of contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
We are reluctant to expand the application of the strict scrutiny test on the basis posited, , that medical malpractice plaintiffs were not a suspect class.
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Arguing that the appropriate test for analyzing its equal protection claim is the strict scrutiny test because the right to bring and pursue a negligence cause of action is a fundamental right, , appellant contends that there is no compelling state interest upon which the statute can be upheld.
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Matter of Hoover 779 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Hoover 779 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1989
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 788 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 788 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Barrio v. San Manuel, supra
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Recently, our supreme court has stated that “any statute which bars a cause of action before it could legitimately be brought abrogates rather than limits the cause of action and offends art. 18, § 6 of the Arizona Constitution.” , vacated in part on other grounds, James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc.
Matusik v. Dorn 756 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Matusik v. Dorn 756 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987