Cited by

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

307 citing documents.

Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
If no duty exists, defendant “is not liable even though he may have acted negligently in light of the foreseeable risks.”
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 941 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1997
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 941 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“A contributory negligence issue cannot be taken from the jury by the simple expedient of calling it an issue of causation.”
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-58 , -70 (1985) (citations omitted).
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hafner v. Beck 916 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Hafner v. Beck 916 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
in which the court stated that “the existence of a duty is not to be confused with details of the standard of conduct.” Id.
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
That duty carries with it “ ‘an implicit requirement that the defendant act reasonably in light of the known and foreseeable risks.’” Ballesteros, 161 Ariz. at 627 , 780 P.2d at 460 (-57 , -69 (1985)).
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
The existence of duty is an issue of law for the court to decide, , not to be confused with details of conformance with a standard of conduct imposed by the relationship.
Callender v. MCO PROPERTIES 885 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Callender v. MCO PROPERTIES 885 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sarmiento v. Stubblefield's Custom Concrete, Inc. 874 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sarmiento v. Stubblefield's Custom Concrete, Inc. 874 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
A finding of no duty, according to our supreme court, means that someone in defendant’s position could “never be liable, no matter what the circumstances.”
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
In speaking of duty here, we include not only the concepts of duty as described in most cases, see, , but also the concept of proximate cause, or the so-called able-bodied man theory, that was mixed with the duty issue in some of the older cases, such as Cruse.
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994