Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., 297 P.2d 339.

52 citing documents.

Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Damages § 3 -293 , (Article II, § 31 does not protect the right to recover punitive damages because “damages” are compensation for actual injury).
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
[sic, 286], [1956], the decedent came on the premises to play with the permission and knowledge of his father, who was an employee of the defendant, and was thereafter attracted to the automatic circuit.breaker to see what was in the glass jars.
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
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
2, § 16.9; Restatement of Torts, Second, §§ 282, 284; Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., , Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 578 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1978
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 578 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1978
See also Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n
State v. Sanchez 579 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Sanchez 579 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
In Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., , the court held that the wrongful death statutes in existence at that time did not provide for exemplary damages.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
In our most recent case on punitive damages, where actual damages of $3,600 actual damages and $15,000 exemplary or punitive damages was awarded, we said: “Punitive damages are allowed on grounds of public policy, , and are based on aggravated, wanton, reckless or maliciously intentional wrongdoing.
Clarke v. Edging 512 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Clarke v. Edging 512 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
See, Spur Feeding Company v. Fernandez, supra; Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Dombrowski v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 496 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1972
Dombrowski v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 496 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1972
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Punitive damages are allowed on grounds of public policy, , and are based on aggravated, wanton, reckless or maliciously intentional wrongdoing.
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Defendant further complains that the doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only to trespassing children and not to child licensees or invitees as the court instructed and cites Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , MacNeil v. Perkins, supra, , as supporting this proposition.
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Certainly there can be no distinction between the maintenance of a wier at pumps for the purpose of measuring water to be used for irrigation purposes and the maintenance of canals for the purpose of conveying the water from the pumping plants to the lands upon which it is applied.” See also Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Griswold 446 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Griswold 446 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
tate broker * * * which is in violation of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, may recover * * * for only actual or compensatory damages sustained by the act, representation, transaction or conduct * * (Emphasis ours) The term “damages” is most generally classified as compensation for actual injury, Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Co-op., Inc., , and “actual damages” and “compensatory damages” are generally treated as synonymous, being defined
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Giacona v. Tapley 428 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Giacona v. Tapley 428 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
ch conditions as: high voltage power lines, Salt River Valley Water Users’ , rehearing denied, , ; blasting powder storage area, , and automatic circuit breaker for a power plant, Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Dist., , Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The trial court, in the case of Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., , “ * * * instructed the jury, after arriving at such amount, (the accumulated estate) to reduce that figure to its present worth, telling the jury how to calculate-such present worth.”
Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects 409 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
we held that the predecessor of this statute did not provide for punitive damages.
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
‘Negligence is simply determined by whether under the conditions then and there existing one should realize there is or should be anticipated an unreasonable risk of harm to one in the position of the injured person.’ Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Coop., Inc., , .
Dobbertin v. Johnson 390 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1964
Dobbertin v. Johnson 390 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1964
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
“Negligence is simply determined by whether under the conditions then and there existing one should realize there is or should be anticipated an unreasonable risk of harm to one in the position of the injured person.” Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Co-op., Inc., , .