Cited by

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

306 citing documents.

Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In arguing that under Arizona law a landlord owes no duty to his tenants with respect to off-premises dangers, , : The question of duty is decided by the court.
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
Ballesteros v. State 780 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ballesteros v. State 780 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fedie v. Travelodge International, Inc. 782 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fedie v. Travelodge International, Inc. 782 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Duty In deciding if the Franklins had a duty, “[t]he 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.”
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Professional Sports, Inc. v. Gillette Security, Inc. 766 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Professional Sports, Inc. v. Gillette Security, Inc. 766 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
A duty must be recognized by law and must obligate the defendant “to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.”
Terranova v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 761 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1988
Terranova v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 761 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1988
Delozier v. Evans 763 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Explained Delozier v. Evans 763 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Smitty’s argument to the contrary is an instance of confusing “the existence of a duty” with “specific details of conduct.”
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 755 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1988
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 755 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dorman v. Swift & Co. 757 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center 755 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Dorman v. Swift & Co. 757 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
: 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.
Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center 755 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Dryden v. Bell 761 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dryden v. Bell 761 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Boy v. Fremont Indemnity Co. 742 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Boy v. Fremont Indemnity Co. 742 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cooke v. Berlin 735 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cooke v. Berlin 735 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In analyzing this duty issue we start with the recognized concept that “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.” , , 366 (1985).
Beck v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 737 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Beck v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 737 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986