Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ramirez v. Health Partners, 972 P.2d 658.

70 citing documents.

Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-28, ¶ 6 , -61 (App.1998).
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-28, ¶ 6 , -61 (1998) (“Issues involving ...
Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
a. ¶ 13 In the absence of controlling statutory or case authority, Arizona courts generally follow the Restatement of the Law if its view “is logical, furthers the interests of justice, is consistent with Arizona law and policy, and has been generally acknowledged elsewhere.”
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Because we must endeavor to decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, , we first address the Hermans’ statutory arguments.
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Although that contention was not addressed and apparently was not raised in Wells Fargo, we rejected a
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
ability unknown at statehood), , (dismissai of claim by insured against insurer for “negligent claims handling” affirmed over anti-abrogation objection because “no cause of action has ever been recognized for negligence in a ease like this”) , (finding no “common law action for negligence in the organ donation context”).
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
27 , 30 at ¶ 20, , (citations omitted).