Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc., 717 P.2d 434.

149 citing documents.

David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Freight System, Inc., -40, -44 (1986), “[t]he critical inquiry in retroactivity analysis is not whether a statute affects a substantive right but whether a statute affects a vested right.
Brunet v. Murphy 135 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Brunet v. Murphy 135 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Freight Sys., Inc., , demonstrates that A.R.S.
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Freight Sys., Inc., quoting Steinfeld v. 3 Nielsen, 139 P. 879, 896 (1913); P.2d 179 (1999).
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Freight System, Inc., -40 , -44 (1986).
Baker v. Arizona Department of Revenue 105 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Arizona Department of Revenue 105 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Freight Sys., Inc., , (“[L]egislation may not retroactively disturb vested rights.”); ¶ 6 , (“[T]he legislature ...
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 83 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 83 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Freight Sys., Inc., , 133 n. 4, , 437 n. 4 (1986); superseded by statute, , (“Oklahoma’s experience with the adoption of comparative negligence is thus especially enlightening in view of their constitutional provision identical to art. 18, § 5.”).
Anderson v. Industrial Commission 72 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Anderson v. Industrial Commission 72 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
We have held that the comparative negligence statute is constitutional under the provisions of article XVIII, § 5 of our constitution, which declares that contributory negligence “shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” See Hall v. A.N.R Freight Sys., Inc., P.2d 434 (1986).
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Freight Sys., Inc., , (substantive right may be impaired before it vests).
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Freight Sys., Inc., , (citations omitted).
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Freight System, Inc., , (“[Article] 18, § 5 did not elevate the defense of contributory negligence into the pantheon of constitutional rights.”).
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
Freight Sys., Inc., , (quoting Allen, 118 Ariz. at 96 , 574 P.2d at 1315 )).
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Freight System, Inc., , , (emphasis original in Hall); see San Carlos Apache Tribe, 193 Ariz. at 205 , 972 P.2d at 189
State v. Murray 982 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1999
State v. Murray 982 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Freight System, Inc., , Chevron Chem.
Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Freight System, Inc., , which held in part that since article 18, section 5 of the Arizona Constitution provides only a proce *259 dural guarantee, the legislature is free to abolish or modify the defense of contributory negligence.
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1994
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
Freight System, Inc., , this court held that Rights are vested, in contradistinction of being expectant or contingent.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by