Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Garcia v. City of South Tucson, 640 P.2d 1117.

33 citing documents.

Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(App. 5 TORRES, et al. v. MARICOPA, et al, Decision of the Court 1981) is misplaced.
Stevenson v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stevenson v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 Although this Court had previously relied on the firefighter’s rule, see, –19 (App. 1981), the Arizona Supreme Court did not adopt the doctrine until 2006.
Read v. Keyfauver 308 P.3d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Read v. Keyfauver 308 P.3d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
White v. State 202 P.3d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
White v. State 202 P.3d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
3 After considering various pleadings, the superior court granted the motion, finding that Defendants’ alleged negligence did not fall within the independent negligence exception to the firefighter’s
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶14 Subsections (D) and (E) were added to § 23-1022 in 1983 in response to this court’s P.2d 1117 (App. 1981).
Espinoza v. Schulenburg 129 P.3d 937 Ariz. 2006
Espinoza v. Schulenburg 129 P.3d 937 Ariz. 2006
But it has also declined to apply the rule and limited it to emergency situations, see Orth, 191 Ariz. at 293, ¶ 10, 955 P.2d at 49, and to the immediate negligence that causes the emergency, but not to subsequent acts
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
§ 11-952.C states that “[n]o agreement made pursuant to this article shall relieve any public agency of any 10 v. City of S. Tucson, –18, –20 (App. 1981) (finding that a Tucson police officer responding to an emergency in South Tucson under an “Intergovernmental Agreement for Mutual Aid in Law Enforcement” was not an employee of South Tucson because “[South Tucson] had
Espinoza v. Schulenburg 108 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Espinoza v. Schulenburg 108 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Orth v. Cole 955 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Orth v. Cole 955 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 4 Arizona has two decisions on the fireman’s rale
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
we made some distinctions: A general knowledge of “a danger” is not sufficient, but rather plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the specific risk which injured him and appreciate its magnitude.
Chancellor v. Taylor 711 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Chancellor v. Taylor 711 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hunt Building Corp. v. Industrial Commission 713 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
“We recently considered a contention that the trial court erred in refusing a , where the verdict for personal injuries was $3,592,213.
Blankinship v. Duarte 669 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Blankinship v. Duarte 669 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 663 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 663 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hernandez v. State 647 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hernandez v. State 647 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
We recently considered a contention that the trial court erred in refusing a , where the verdict for personal injuries was $3,592,213.