Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Cor…, 694 P.2d 198.

79 citing documents.

Wagner v. Rao 885 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Integration Clause Although parties may contractually disclaim potential tort liability by a clear expression of intent to do so, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & , our courts have carved out an exception for cases involving fraud.
State v. C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. 876 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. 876 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Corp., , (attempts to avoid or limit tort liability disfavored as “tending] to encourage carelessness”).
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
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
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
v. Westinghouse Elec., , supports its claim of unconscionability.
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In the reply brief, Menendez cites Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & , , Wetzel, 18 Ariz.App.
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc. 800 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc. 800 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., -83 , -13 (1984) (quoting Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 17 Utah 2d 255, 259 , ).
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Corp., , with Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 300 N.C.
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
See, for example, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & , which illustrates the reluctance of the law to uphold contractual provisions that negate tort duties.
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement &amp
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Pacific American Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Building Systems, Inc. 730 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pacific American Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Building Systems, Inc. 730 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
findings of unconscionability in a commercial setting are rare.” , (approving court of appeals opinion at , , on this point).
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.
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985