Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 716 P.2d 1013.

31 citing documents.

Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery.” Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmel, M.D., Ltd., (citing Restatement (Second) Torts § 46).
Andrich v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Andrich v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., (stating that these are two factors courts should consider).
Harding v. Sternsher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Harding v. Sternsher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd.
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43, 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim).
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because the term “outrageous conduct” is “not readily capable of precise legal definition, a ease-by-case analysis is required.” Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd.
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt.
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–79, –16 (1986) (citation omitted).
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 70 , in arguing that summary judgment may never be granted when state of mind is at issue.
Margaret H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 148 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Margaret H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 148 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(if party’s state of mind or intent is a material issue, summary judgment “normally” improper); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmel, M.D., Ltd., (same).
Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., -79 , -16 (1986).
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Plaintiffs point to Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., , as support for recognition of an independent cause of action, “a tort of outrage.” Id.
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Lindsey v. Dempsey 735 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lindsey v. Dempsey 735 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Nothing in this case compares in any way with the conduct complained of in Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., , which the supreme court held was sufficient conduct to withstand a motion for summary judgment.