Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crouse v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 272 P.2d 352.

45 citing documents.

Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
For example, as support for its general off-premises duty, as stating that “fellow-citizens” have a duty to “avoid causing harm to one another.” See infra ¶ 97.
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
("It is settled law in Arizona that the risk of harm to neighboring property from dusting or spraying crops by airplane is very great, so great in fact that liability for such harm cannot be avoided by hiring an independent contractor to perform such work.”); Lundberg v. Bolon, 67 Ariz.
Tri-City Property Management Services, Inc. v. Research Products Corp. 721 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Tri-City Property Management Services, Inc. v. Research Products Corp. 721 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
W. Prosser & W. Keeton, The Law of Torts § 51 (5th ed. 1984).
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
394, illustrates the principles consistently applied by the Arizona courts in determining non-contractual indemnity claims: “Busy Bee and Crouse [ , ] only permit indemnity where the party seeking indemnity was not personally at fault and did not actively participate in the wrong causing injury to the third party, but was nevertheless liable because of the legal duty to the third party for the conduct of the indemnitor who actively caused the
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc. 579 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc. 579 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Henderson Realty v. Mesa Paving Co. 554 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Henderson Realty v. Mesa Paving Co. 554 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
P.2d 352 (1954), a farmer was held entitled to indemnification from his insecticide supplier when the insecticide ruined a neighbor’s melon crop.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Scottsdale 537 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Scottsdale 537 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
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
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In re Stitt’s Estate, , , 2B Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1075, pp. 381-83 (Wright ed. 1960).
Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Cf. O. S. Stapley Company v. Miller, supra; , , Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Company, supra; Smith v. Hobart Mfg.
Paul v. Holcomb 442 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Paul v. Holcomb 442 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Throop v. FE Young and Company 382 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1963
Throop v. FE Young and Company 382 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1963
As stated ' , : “Where negligence is charged to another’s conduct, it is often helpful to break the problem down into its component parts of duty, violation thereof, and resulting injury, or, , , 325: ‘It is basic under our law that to con
Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors 372 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1962
Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors 372 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1962
Golfinos v. Southern Pacific Company 345 P.2d 780 Ariz. 1959
City of Yuma v. Evans 336 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1959
City of Yuma v. Evans 336 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1959
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Compton, , .
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kelton 285 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1955
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kelton 285 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1955
Tucker v. Collar 285 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1955
Tucker v. Collar 285 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1955
Pena v. Stewart 278 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1955
Pena v. Stewart 278 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1955
356 : “Where negligence is charged to another’s conduct, it is often helpful to break the problem down into its component parts of duty, violation thereof, and resulting injury * * The rights and duties of the parties in the instant case depend upon their relationship, which is clearly that of landlor