Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty., 698 P.2d 712.

105 citing documents.

Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Cf. Summerfield v. Superior Court , , 472, , 717 (1985) (where no evidence to suggest legislature intended to occupy field completely, room remains for future judicial action).
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall 424 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall 424 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Summerfield v. Superior Court , , 469, , 714 (1985) ("[T]here are several pending cases in the *423 superior courts which present the same issue.
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
(“The phrase[] ‘such damages as are fair and just,’ .
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-70 , -15 (1985) (supreme court accepted special action from superior court when several pending cases presented same issue and question presented was one of law and statewide importance); , (noting direct filing in supreme co
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ct. (Riddel), , (citations omitted).
State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Special action jurisdiction is proper when “an issue is one of first impression of a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again____” , , (accepting special action jurisdiction when several pending cases involved the same issue and finding that “[njormal appellate procedures will result in unnecessary cost and delay to all litigants”).
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
4 P.2d 712 (1985), which held a viable fetus is a person under Arizona’s wrongful death statute.
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(viable, stillborn fetus a “person” under wrongful death statute).
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
The Claim Under Arizona’s Wrongful Death Statutes ¶ 20 The superior court correctly held that under current Arizona law a cryopreserved, three-day-old eight-cell pre-embryo is not a “person” for whose loss or destruction the Jeters can recover under Arizona’s
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-70 , -15 (1985) (citation omitted) (accepting special action jurisdiction to determine whether parents of a viable fetus that was stillborn as a result of medical malpractice can maintain wrongful death suit).
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
to be compensated for their loss resulting from the victim's death.” (emphasis in original); A.R.S.
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 32 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 32 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(acknowledging binding authority of United States Supreme Court opinion on subject but determining Arizona Supreme Court’s decision did not conflict with that opinion).
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
(Emphasis added); see also, , (“While legislative inaction following an authoritative opinion by this court may militate in favor of defendant’s position, the same is not true when the matter in question has never been before this court.”).
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
And, her argument continues, because our supreme court has since recognized that wrongful death actions have common law attributes, , a strict interpretation of § 12-612(A) is no longer necessary.
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
21, 1998); , 472 n. 2, , 717 n. 2 (1985) (“[the anti-abrogation clause] of the Arizona Constitution forbids the legislature from setting any limit on personal injury damages.”).
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
(special action jurisdiction granted to determine whether wrongful death statute encompassed death of stillborn, viable fetus).
Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1998
Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1998
Burnham v. Miller 972 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Burnham v. Miller 972 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Summerfield v. Superior Court, *314

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by