Cited by

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

306 citing documents.

Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
is whether the relationship of the parties was such that the defendant was under an obligation to use some care to avoid or prevent injury to the plaintiff.”
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Stanley v. McCarver 92 P.3d 849 Ariz. 2004
Stanley v. McCarver 92 P.3d 849 Ariz. 2004
Clark v. New Magma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage District 92 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage District 92 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Therefore, “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.”
Clark v. New Magma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Therefore, “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.”
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Duty is simply a question of whether “the relationship of the parties was such that the defendant was under an obligation to use some care to avoid or prevent injury to the plaintiff.”
Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
is whether the relationship of the parties was such that the defendant was under an obligation to use some care to avoid or prevent injury to the plaintiff.”
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
“A contributory negligence issue cannot be taken from the jury by the simple expedient of calling it an issue of causation.” (once there was evidence that defendant’s negligent failure to warn was cause of injury, it was improper to grant summary judgment for defendant on theory that plaintiff’s later negligent disregard of danger was sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury); see also Schwab, 164 Ariz. a
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(plaintiff may maintain negligence action only if defendant owes duty to plaintiff); Meineke v. GAB Bus.
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fehribach v. Smith 22 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fehribach v. Smith 22 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
REPUBLIC NAT. BANK OF NY v. Pima County 25 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
REPUBLIC NAT. BANK OF NY v. Pima County 25 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
“[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 stan *203 dard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.”
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd. 8 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd. 8 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Sabina v. Yavapai County Flood Control District 993 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Sabina v. Yavapai County Flood Control District 993 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(“The question is whether the plaintiff was in the foreseeable range of defendant’s negligent conduct ...
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See generally Markowitz v. *57 Arizona Parks Bd., , (whether a duty exists is a question of law).
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
“The question is whether the relationship of the parties was such that the defendant was under an obligation to use some care to avoid or prevent injury to the plaintiff.” , superseded by A.R.S.
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
1 Because the existence of a duty is a legal question, , we review the trial court’s ruling de novo.
Thomas v. Kenneth 953 P.2d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Thomas v. Kenneth 953 P.2d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997