Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc., 579 P.2d 53.

48 citing documents.

Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mem'l Hosps., Inc., (noting a trial court should not consider hearsay in addressing a motion for summary judgment).
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mem’l Hosps., , (providing that to justify judicial disregard of corporate identities, the party must show that “the dominant corporation ...
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Mem’l Hosps., -19 , -57 (App.1978))); Villas at Hidden Lakes Condos.
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 24 In Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc., , we acknowledged the nonliability of corporate directors for a tort committed by the corporation unless they participated in or acquiesced in or were “guilty of negligence in the management and supervision of the corporate affairs causing or contributing to the injury.” We also held th
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mem’l. Hosps., Inc., , dealt with an intentional conversion of funds owed to employees approved by the board.
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mem’l. Hosps., Inc., , dealt with an intentional conversion of funds owed to employees approved by the board.
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra 32 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra 32 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Although it is generally true that a trial court should not consider hearsay in considering a motion for summary judgment, Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc., , the trial court here erred in not considering Day’s statements.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Id.; Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospital, Inc., , Ize Nantan Bagowa
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Memorial Hosp., -19 , -57 (App.1978) (in summary judgment court cannot consider affidavit based on inadmissible evidence).
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co. 788 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co. 788 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
A party may not resist a motion for summary judgment by general statements or allegations of its counsel, , nor are affidavits based on hearsay sufficient, Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc.
Hartsock v. Bandhauer 764 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hartsock v. Bandhauer 764 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Webster v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Webster v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court, *158
Focal Point, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Arizona, Inc. 746 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Focal Point, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Arizona, Inc. 746 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Patton v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n. of Phoenix
Scottsdale Insurance v. Monares 734 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Scottsdale Insurance v. Monares 734 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospital, Inc., , Rule 56(e), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc.
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc.
Koestel v. Buena Vista Public Service Corp. 676 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Koestel v. Buena Vista Public Service Corp. 676 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc.
Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
a summary judgment was entered against plaintiffs in favor of one of the defendants.
ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, ETC. v. Olson 643 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, ETC. v. Olson 643 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc.
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981
Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 69 599 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1979
Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 69 599 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1979
eachers or a janitor telling the kids to get down.” While a summary judgment is not generally appropriate in negligence cases, , it is proper when the record demonstrates that there are no material issues of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
Schmidt v. MEL CLAYTON FORD, ETC. 601 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Schmidt v. MEL CLAYTON FORD, ETC. 601 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979