Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 697 P.2d 684.

219 citing documents.

9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
Co. of Ariz., (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the state).
State Farm Automobile v. Jacey Lee Orlando Ariz. 2025
State Farm Automobile v. Jacey Lee Orlando Ariz. 2025
Co. of Ariz., (“We hold that the exclusion denying coverage to an insured injured by an uninsured motorist while the insured is occupying a vehicle owned by the insured but not listed in the policy is invalid as being contrary to the coverage mandated by A.R.S.
Kay Franklin v. Csaa General Insurance Ariz. 2023
Kay Franklin v. Csaa General Insurance Ariz. 2023
Heritage v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Heritage v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Frank and Bettina Gambrell v. Ids Property Casualty Insurance Co. 357 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Frank and Bettina Gambrell v. Ids Property Casualty Insurance Co. 357 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
the court concluded a provision in the plaintiff’s policy disallowing UM coverage when the insured was injured in his own uninsured motor vehicle 6 was an “other vehicle” exclusion that contravened the public policy of the statute.
State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones 334 P.3d 191 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones 334 P.3d 191 Ariz. 2014
Co., –97, –90 (1985) (emphasis added).
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beaver v. American Family Mutual Insurance 324 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beaver v. American Family Mutual Insurance 324 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co. of Ariz., , (“Owens and progeny, however, were decided by the Court of Appeals, and not the court of last resort in this state, the Arizona Supreme Court.”).
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co. of Ariz., , (ascertaining legislative intent based on “words, context, subject matter, and effects and consequences of the statute”).
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Buehler v. RETZER EX REL. INDUS. COM'N 260 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Buehler v. RETZER EX REL. INDUS. COM'N 260 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
Co., 144 Ariz. 291, 297 n.5, n.5 (1985).
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
Co. of Ariz., 144 Ariz. 291, 294, we nonetheless conclude, as we did in Tallent, that imposing a comprehension requirement is “both unwarranted by the statute and unwise,” 185 Ariz. at 268, 915 P.2d at 667.
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , 297 n. 5, , 690 n. 5 (1985) (“Menial of a petition for review has no precedential value” and does not indicate the Supreme Court’s agreement with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning or conclusion); , (declining to exercise special action ju
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
Co., 144 Ariz. 291, 294, ).
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 150 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2007
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 150 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2007
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc. 88 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc. 88 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co. of Ariz., , 297 n. 5, , 690 n. 5 (1985).
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002