Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein, 446 P.2d 11.

29 citing documents.

harte/travelers v. vasquez/special fund/ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
harte/travelers v. vasquez/special fund/ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
or to prescribe alterations and deviations” does not constitute control over the subcontractor’s work); (provisions in construction contracts reserving the right to the general contractor to direct, order, instruct, or supervise a subcontractor is not the type of control that negates a subcontractor’s status as an independent contractor).
Vega v. Griffiths Construction, Inc. 833 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Jones Construction Co., 105 Ariz. at 454 , 466 P.2d at 748 ; , Fluor Corporation v. Sykes, 3 *462 Ariz.App.
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 823 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 823 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
111 , , several exceptions exist, some of which provide the basis for appellant’s further arguments.
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
91 , , Fluor Corporation v. Sykes, 3 Ariz.App.
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Co., supra; , Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company, 1 Ariz.App.
Jackson v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith Engineers, Inc. 512 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Jackson v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith Engineers, Inc. 512 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
91 , , Fluor Corp. v. Sykes, 3 Ariz.App.
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 511 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 511 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hammer v. Bell Construction Co. 491 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hammer v. Bell Construction Co. 491 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Reber Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Chandler High School District 202 474 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Reber Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Chandler High School District 202 474 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
91 , , ; Fluor Corporation v. Sykes, 3 Ariz.App.
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 474 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 474 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
For example, , this court held that mere general supervisory control over the job by a general contractor is not enough control as a matter of law to create a tort action under § 414.
German v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 462 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
German v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 462 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
This doctrine of “retained control” is recognized or discussed in three recent Arizona decisions, , Fluor Corp. v. Sykes, 3 Ariz.App.