Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bryant v. Silverman, 703 P.2d 1190.

42 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
§§ 14-2711, -2401 (administration of trusts and estates); –45 (1985) (conflict of laws in personal injury context); Maricopa County v. Trs.
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
¶41 Arizona, the forum state, has an interest in obtaining just compensation for its residents who suffer injury, and deterring wrongs against its citizens, see Jackson, 204 Ariz. at 139 ¶ 17, 61 P.3d at 21.
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC. 276 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC. 276 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Because the parties have treated this matter as arising under Arizona law, and there is a basis to do so, , 44 n. 2, , 1193 n. 2 (1985) (limiting analysis to issue presented by parties of whether Arizona or Colorado law applied because parties did not argue that New Mexico or Texas law should apply and only analyzing "contacts of New Mexico or Texas when such contacts would favor application of Arizona or Co
Parra v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. 213 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Parra v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. 213 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(in considering choice of law, “state with the ‘most significant relationship’ or ‘greater interest’ should govern rather than the place of injury”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 178 cmt.
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Riebe Enters., Inc., , , (“Thus, Arizona allows unlimited recovery for actual damages, expenses for past and prospective medical care, past and prospective pain and suffering, lost earnings, and diminished earning capacity.”).
Jackson v. Chandler 61 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2003
Jackson v. Chandler 61 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2003
Hislop v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 5 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Hislop v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 5 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 984 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1999
Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 984 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1999
Tort recovery for an industrial injury can include “unlimited recovery for actual damages, expenses for past and prospective medical care, past and prospective pain and suffering, lost earnings, and diminished earning capacity.”
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The dissent states that “[t]oday’s opinion authorizes stacking of coverages right in the face of Nebraska law that governs the offer and issuance of the coverages, notwithstanding our supreme court’s P.2d 1190 (1985), that Arizona has little or no interest in compensation of nonresident plaintiffs.” Op.
DeLoach v. Alfred 960 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1998
DeLoach v. Alfred 960 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1998
(“the state where the injury occurs does not have a strong interest in compensation if the injured plaintiff is a non-resident.”).
DeLoach v. Alfred 952 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
DeLoach v. Alfred 952 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(state where plaintiff and defendant reside has a strong interest in making plaintiff whole).
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 917 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1996
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 917 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1996
44 n. 1, ,1193 n. 1 (1985).
Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The Restatement, however, states the following: “Formalities which meet the requirements of the place where the parties execute the contract will usually be acceptable.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 199(2) (1971); , (adopting Restatement for analyzing conflicts questions).
Hoeller v. Riverside Resort Hotel 820 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hoeller v. Riverside Resort Hotel 820 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ambrose, 151 Ariz. at 531 , 729 P.2d at 335
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
See, , Ambrose v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.
Brandler v. Manuel Trevizo Hay Co. 740 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Brandler v. Manuel Trevizo Hay Co. 740 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
E. g., , see Santana, 686 F. 2d at 738 (“We have been cited to no recent Arizona cases indicating that our conclusion in Strickland \y. Watt, 453 F.2d 393 (9th Cir.1972)] is now incorrect”); -13 , -32 (1986) (“The traditional rule regarding statutes of li
Farias v. Mattel, Inc. 735 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Farias v. Mattel, Inc. 735 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ambrose v. Illinois-California Express, Inc. 729 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ambrose v. Illinois-California Express, Inc. 729 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986