Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 730 P.2d 186.

127 citing documents.

Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
It protects from legislative repeal or revocation those tort actions that “either existed at common law or evolved from rights recognized at common law.” ¶ 39 , see also Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (observing that the anti-abrogation provision extends the right to recover damages for injuries to all actions existing under the common law); , 147 P. 732, 735 (1915) (superseded by statute) (finding that the anti-abrogation provision preser
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (when necessary, court examines history of constitutional provision to determine framers’ intent).
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See Barrio, 143 Ariz. at 106 , 692 P.2d at 285 (The legislature "may not, under the guise of `regulation,' so affect the fundamental right to sue for damages as to effectively deprive the claimant of the ability to bring the action."); Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , ("We differentiate between abrogation and regulation by determining whether a purported legislative regulation leaves those claiming injury a reasonable possibility of obtaining legal redress.").
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
” See Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (citing Barrio, 143 Ariz. at 105 , 692 P.2d at 284 ; Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 73-75, 79-83 , 688 P.2d at 965-67, 971-75 ).
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
See also Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (article 18, § 6, was intended to “preserv[e] the ability to invoke judicial remedies for those wrongs traditionally recognized at common law”); Ramirez, , (when statute “does not abrogate any viable ‘right of action to recover damages,’ it does not
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 17 Hazine held that article 18, section 6 “‘is not limited to those elements and concepts of particular [causes of action] which are defined in our pre-statehood case law.’ ” Hazine, 176 Ariz. at 343-44 , 861 P.2d at 628 -29 ( , cert.
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Bryant was therefore suspect authority from the moment it was issued, particularly given the preexisting Boswell [v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , ] opinion.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Bryant was therefore suspect authority from the moment it was issued, particularly given the preexisting Boswell [v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , ] opinion.
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
-83 , -75 (1984); Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
¶ 54 ‘We interpret constitutional provisions by examining the text and, where necessary, history in an attempt to determine the framers’ intent.” Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (emphasis added).
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
¶ 18 ‘We differentiate between abrogation and regulation by determining whether a purported legislative regulation leaves those claiming injury a reasonable possibility of obtaining legal redress.” Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Plaintiff asserts that the dichotomy between legislative “regulation” and "abrogation,” discussed extensively in cases that have analyzed article 18, § 6 of the constitution, “is neither required nor helpful here.” See, e.g., Jimenez
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
A. The Language Of The Anti-Abrogation Clause Limits Its Application To Tort Law ¶ 23 “We interpret constitutional provisions by examining the text, and, where necessary, history in an attempt to determine the framers intent.” See Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., -18 , -95 (1986) (examining the “historical milieu in which Arizona’s Constitution was adopted” to determine the meaning of the anti-abrogation clause).
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
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (citing McCormick, Law of Evidence § 162 (1954) and 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 375 (1979)), approved as supplemented
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
[7] , Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , cert.
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , cert.
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
specially concurring); see also Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , 19 n. 22, , 196 n. 22 (1986).
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Young Through Young v. Dfw Corp. 908 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Young Through Young v. Dfw Corp. 908 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
The court applied the Barrio test in Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , cert.
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
See, e.g., Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (legislature may regulate method and procedure of cause of action but cannot enact “practically insurmountable defenses”).
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
See, e.g., Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (legislature may regulate method and procedure of cause of action but cannot enact "practically insurmountable defenses").
Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , cert.