Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Austin v. City of Scottsdale, 684 P.2d 151.

42 citing documents.

Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai Ariz. 2025
Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai Ariz. 2025
n.2 (1984) (“By establishing a police department, a municipality becomes neither a general insurer of safety nor absolutely liable for all harms to its citizens.”).
Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta Janette Dodge v. Yavapai County Town of Dewey-Humboldt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta Janette Dodge v. Yavapai County Town of Dewey-Humboldt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
As the state correctly observes, we have previously held that the establishment of a police department does not make it a “general insurer of safety.” ( n.2 (1984)).
Bottomlee v. State 459 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Bottomlee v. State 459 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
have 'a duty to act as would a reasonably careful and prudent police department in the same circumstances,'" Hogue, 240 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 12 (-82 (1984) (duty may exist when acts by police have "narrowed the obligation owed to the general public into a specific obligation owed" to an individual)); -56, ¶ 26 (1998) (by creating 9-1-1 system, city accepted duty to 2 Beyond gross negligence by
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Superior Court (Donaldson), 4 reversed on other grounds, to support her argument that the City may be liable for simple negligence.
Stair v. Maricopa 429 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stair v. Maricopa 429 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Arizona, if police endeavor to provide specific protection to a particular person, they generally only have “a duty to act as would a reasonably careful and prudent police department in the same circumstances.” –82, –54 (1984).
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 318, ¶ 49 , 206 P.3d at 767 (citing Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 145, ¶ 18 , 150 P.3d at 232 ) (-82 , -54 (1984)); ¶ 7
Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
And the court has stated that once a municipality has “opted to provide police protection, [it] ha[s] a duty to act as would a reasonably careful and prudent police department in the same circumstances.” -82 , -54 (1984).
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
We merely hold that, under the particular circumstances here, where the Sanchezes’ inability to remedy the violation of § 12-2604 within the deadline arose from Old Pueblo’s approximate six-month delay in raising a challenge on that basis, such a drastic sanction is not supported by the record before us. 15 579, 581, (sanction of dismissal “‘harsh and not to be invoked except under extreme circumstances’”)
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Distinguished Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
P.2d 449 (1998),2 P.2d 151 (1984), addressed allegations that 911 operators had negligently responded to emergency calls by either failing to act on a reported threat (Austin) or assigning a low priority to an eventual murder victim’s call for help (Hutcherson).
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
That court has also observed that simply because “children are not named plaintiffs but are merely beneficiaries does not preclude them from being ‘parties’ to the litigation.” -81 , -53 (1984).
McDonald v. City of Prescott 5 P.3d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
McDonald v. City of Prescott 5 P.3d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 14 Although a police officer’s responsibilities do not include road maintenance per se, Prescott, “having opted to provide police protection, had a duty to act as would a reasonably careful and prudent police department in the same circumstances.” -82 , -54 (1984).
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
They cite Ryan , where the State negligently allowed an inmate to escape; , where a dispatcher negligently processed a phone call; , vacated on other grounds, , where a 911 operator negligently processed a phone call.
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
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
Ariz. 579, 581, quoting Buchanan v. Jimenez, 18 Ariz.App.
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
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-82 , -54 (1984); Grimm v. Arizona Bd.
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-81 , -53 (1984) (“That children are not named plaintiffs but are merely beneficiaries does not preclude them from being ‘parties’ to the litigation.”); see also A.R.S.
Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
to establish that Maricopa County owed them such a duty.
King v. Industrial Commission 771 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
King v. Industrial Commission 771 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
is harsh and not to be invoked except under extreme circumstances.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by