Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 485 P.2d 859.

40 citing documents.

Date Street v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Date Street v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
& Mining Co., (footnote omitted)).
Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Meno's construction/aig v. Reyes 442 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
& Mining Co., (explaining that the purpose of imposing liability upon the statutory employer is “to prevent evasion of the Act by an employer through the device of subcontracting its regular operations and thereby avoiding direct employment relations with the workers and making them dependent on their immediate employer
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
& Mining Co., 15 Ariz .App. 35, 39, (footnote omitted).
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
to a contract can recover under that contract only if he is a primary beneficiary under the terms of the contract: The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
: The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company
Matter of Estate of Levine 700 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Matter of Estate of Levine 700 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
See Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1983
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 40 Ariz. 1983
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 40 Ariz. 1983
§ 23-902(A); see also and compare United States Fidelity & , (holding the remote employer primarily liable for compensation benefits even though the direct employer provided coverage); and Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, , (stating that the remote employer is secondarily liable for workmen’s compensation if the direct employer fails to provide coverage).
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1983
See Livingston v. Citizens Utility, Inc., , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , and Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
277 , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
See generally, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Norton v. First Federal Savings 624 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1981
Norton v. First Federal Savings 624 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1981
The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, P.2d 859 (1971).
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Robles 624 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Robles 624 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Clarke v. Asarco Inc. 601 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Clarke v. Asarco Inc. 601 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Cf. Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company
Vineyard v. Southwest Engineering & Contracting Co. 570 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Vineyard v. Southwest Engineering & Contracting Co. 570 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Robert E. McKee General Contractors, Inc. 491 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Robert E. McKee General Contractors, Inc. 491 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., , and cases cited therein.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by