DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chamberlain v. Mathis, 729 P.2d 905.

63 citing documents.

  • Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that common law governmental immunity did not at-taeh to “ministerial” acts, concluding that absolute immunity should be applied narrowly.
  • City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Plaintiff relies on Golino, 950 F.2d at 868 (“Where the [trial] court has ruled that adjudication of the immunity defense requires resolution of genuinely disputed questions of material fact, the denial of summary judgment is not immediately appealable.”), , (“If the existence of immunity turns on disputed factual issues, the jury determines the facts____”).
  • Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    “Once an immunity defense has been raised properly, the court determines whether defendants are entitled to immunity.”
  • Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
  • Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
    DISCUSSION A. Scope of this Decision Our immunity decisions have given “conflicting signals.”
  • Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Walker v. State 780 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Walker v. State 780 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Because Hibbs and Smith were discussing the operation of their department, they were protected by a qualified privilege in a
  • Western Technologies, Inc. v. Neal 768 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Western Technologies, Inc. v. Neal 768 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    To resolve the appeal we must decide the following issues: (1) , for qualified immunity of a public official; and (2) whether the trial court erred in its implicit determination that the materials presented to it raised no genuine issue of material fact on the qualified immunity issue, and that Neal was protected as a matter of law by qualified immunity when h