Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Salinas v. Kahn, 407 P.2d 120.

57 citing documents.

Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Co., (rejecting suggestion that lack of capacity to sue constitutes failure to state claim); -70, -57 (1976)
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Determining whether a party has standing has led us to hold that “a person who is not injured by an unconstitutional provision of a statute may not raise an objection as to its constitutionality.” , , modified on other grounds, 2 Ariz.App.
Gittings v. American Family Insurance 888 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gittings v. American Family Insurance 888 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
1 , 2 involved a collision between two trucks on an interstate highway.
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
181, , modified on other grounds, 2 ArizApp.
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
P.2d 120 , modified on other grounds, 2 Ariz.App.
Katz v. Filandro 739 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Katz v. Filandro 739 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
We have also held, in discussing distribution of damages following the 1956 statutory amendment (that damages to survivors be distributed according to the laws of intestacy), that this manner of distribution controls “only when the action is brought for the benefit of the estate, that is, when there is no surviving spouse, parent or child.” , , modified, 2 Ariz.App.
Hurt v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 601 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1979
Hurt v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 601 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1979
With full discovery being allowed to parties under modern rules of procedure, matters of this kind should be raised prior to trial, particularly when a jury trial is scheduled * *
DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
DeLozier v. Smith 522 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
We find no merit in this argument in light of this court’s , rehearing denied, 2 Ariz.App.
Lombardo v. Pollock 521 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Lombardo v. Pollock 521 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
* * >}c ^ # % C. The amount recovered in an action for wrongful death shall be distributed to the parties provided for in subsection A and in the proportions provided by law for distribution of personal estate left by persons dying intestate.” , rehearing denied 2 Ariz.App.
Huebner v. Deuchle 501 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Huebner v. Deuchle 501 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
foreseeability appears to be the gist of the test adopted by our Supreme Court as to whether subsequent negligent conduct is a superseding cause of injury so as to relieve the defendant of liability.”, or goes to the issue of proximate cause; , modified, 2 Ariz.App.
Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kasprowiz v. Industrial Commission 480 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lueck v. Superior Court, County of Cochise 469 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1970
Wilson v. Sereno 461 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Wilson v. Sereno 461 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
ich started the sequence which produced the injury might occur and *326 that it would act together with the static condition and produce injury, even though the two acts of negligence are not concurrent, they are both proximate causes of the injury and an action may be brought against either negligent person, though not against them jointly.” , opinion modified and rehearing denied, 2 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
which was modified in other particulars by a supplemental opinion reported in 2 Ariz.App.
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
297 , , , modified, 2 Ariz.App.
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
“ * * * met with on the highway of adjudication.”
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Modified, Rehearing denied, 2 Ariz.App.
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Union Bank v. Safanie 427 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Union Bank v. Safanie 427 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Zuniga v. City of Tucson 425 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Zuniga v. City of Tucson 425 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure
Morris v. Ortiz 415 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Morris v. Ortiz 415 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cornum
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966