DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board, 706 P.2d 364.

306 citing documents.

  • Bnccorp v. Hub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Bnccorp v. Hub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Auto holds “it was a question of breach, not duty, whether an agent’s failure to advise a client about additional insurance gave rise to liability”); (citation omitted) (“[D]isapprov[ing] of attempts to equate the concept of duty with specific details of conduct.”).
  • Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Acri v. State 394 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Acri v. State 394 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 7 A duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.”
  • Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Francis v. Purk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Francis v. Purk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    at 145, ¶ 21, 150 P.3d at 232 ( 1 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 226, at 577 (2001)).6 ¶9 Arizona law imposes a duty on a possessor of land to use reasonable care to make the premises safe for invitees.
  • Moore v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Moore v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ( superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
  • Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶7 Duty is defined as an “obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.” Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 10, 150 P.3d at 230 ( ).
  • Maassen v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Maassen v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (when reasonable persons could not differ on the question of causation given the evidence presented, the superior court “may direct a verdict on the issue”).
  • US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 9, 150 P.3d at 230 ( ).
  • April Abigail Guerra v. State of Arizona 348 P.3d 423 Ariz. 2015
  • April Abigail Guerra v. State of Arizona 348 P.3d 423 Ariz. 2015
    7 Under Arizona’s common law of negligence, “duty” is “an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.” , (quoting William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 42, at 325-26 (4th ed.1971)); , (describing “duty” as “the relation between individuals which imposes upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other” ( , )).
  • Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
  • Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
  • Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    ¶8 “Duty is defined as an ‘obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.’”
  • Monroe v. Basis School, Inc. 318 P.3d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Monroe v. Basis School, Inc. 318 P.3d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    Duty is defined as a legal obligation that requires a defendant “to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.”
  • McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    However, “a possessor of land ‘is under an affirmative duty' to use reasonable care to make the premises safe for use by invitees.” , ( , ).
  • Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
  • Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
    3 The standard of reasonable care “may be modified by the surrounding circumstances of time, place and persons.” Buntin, 54 Ariz. at 185, 94 P.2d at 641; (“What is reasonable on the one hand or negligent on the other will depend on the circumstances.”); Second Restatement § 283.
  • Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    See Gipson II, 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 9 , 150 P.3d at 230
  • 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
    Thus, “a negligence action may be maintained only if there is a duty or obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.” , see also Gipson, , 150 P.3d at 230 (“Whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care is a threshold issue; absent some duty, an action for negligence cannot be maintained.”).
  • Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu 204 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu 204 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    superseded on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.
  • Maria Henning v. Montecini Hospitality Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Maria Henning v. Montecini Hospitality Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.”
  • Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix 167 P.3d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix 167 P.3d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    at ¶ 18; , superseded on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.
  • Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    *438 143, ¶ 9, ( , superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Maher v. United States, 56 F.3d 1039 , 1042 n. 4 (9th Cir.1995)).
  • Gipson v. Kasey 150 P.3d 228 Ariz. 2007
  • Gipson v. Kasey 150 P.3d 228 Ariz. 2007