Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Duke v. Cochise County, 938 P.2d 84.

26 citing documents.

Boyle v. Ford Motor Company 334 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Boyle v. Ford Motor Company 334 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 5-6, 10, -90 (App. 1999) (party cannot benefit from Rule 68 when it failed to comply with the rule by offering an impermissible, unapportioned lump-sum offer); (same); Clouse v. State Dep’t of Pub.
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 68 , and argue that under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 68, an “undifferentiated, unappor-tioned settlement figure provides insufficient information and incentive” to allow an offeree to settle.
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶53 -41, -90 (App. 1996), we held that imposition of Rule 68 sanctions cannot be based on an unapportioned joint offer of settlement from multiple parties.
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶45 ¶ 10 , , to argue that an unapportioned joint offer cannot support imposition of Rule 68 sanctions.
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Connolly 132 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Connolly 132 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 10 To state a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim arising from witnessing another person’s injury or death, a plaintiff must establish that she was within the “zone of danger,” and “must prove physical injury resulting from the shock of witnessing injury to a closely related person.” , -16 , -70 (1979).
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Doe v. State 7 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Doe v. State 7 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(unambiguous language of statute is determinative).
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
However, , held that “unapportioned joint offers of judgment [are] invalid for purposes of imposing sanctions under Rule 68, regardless of the outcome at trial.” Id.
Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co. 993 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co. 993 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
2 The trial court denied the sanctions, determining that under applicable case law, , the offer of judgment was an unapportioned, lump-sum offer, on which an award of sanctions was not proper.
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by