Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gilbert v. Quinet, 369 P.2d 267.

61 citing documents.

Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Id.; , (relevant inquiry for foreseeability of risk looks at anyone in plaintiffs position, not a particular plaintiff).
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(Gilbert vs. Quinet, , and Restatement (2d) of Torts § 283A).
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe 672 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1983
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe 672 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1983
-34 , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 296, comments a and d (1965).
Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
For the first time, , and approved in Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App.
Livesay v. State 615 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1980
Livesay v. State 615 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1980
Ehman v. Rathbun 569 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ehman v. Rathbun 569 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Hemet Dodge v. Gryder 534 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hemet Dodge v. Gryder 534 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gillespie Land & , , ; , 276 P. 322 (1929).
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Smith 521 P.2d 1139 Ariz. 1974
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Smith 521 P.2d 1139 Ariz. 1974
State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
Carrizoza v. Zahn 515 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Carrizoza v. Zahn 515 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lowery v. Turner 506 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lowery v. Turner 506 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
see also Valentine v. Faulkner, supra.
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Defendant additionally contends that the imminent peril instruction as given was defective in form and content, , for the proposition that the following paragraph should have been added to the instruction : “If a motor vehicle driver himself created the sudden emergency or brought about the perilous situation through his own negligence, he cannot avoid liability for an injury merely on the ground that his a
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
risk reasonably to be perceived which defines the duty to be obeyed.”, and in addition included foreseeability within the standard of care context; Matsumato v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co., supra, where the court found foreseeability as a matter of law on the duty issue and indicated that a jury instruction should be given on foreseeability on the negligence issue; , where the court said that foreseeability goes to the negligence issue; , where the court stated that foreseeability went to the du
Stump v. Fitzgerald 484 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Stump v. Fitzgerald 484 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The following cases are illustrative: , , ; , Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Company, 2 Ariz.App.
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
595 ] 442 P2[d] 153 (Arizona Court of Appeals 6-12-68), the Court pointed out the model uniform jury instruction containing the suggestions made by the Supreme Court in Gilbert vs Quinet, , 369 P2[d] 267 [1962].
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ruiz v. Faulkner 470 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
See Restatement (Second) Torts, § 283(A) (1963-1964).
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App.
Wilson v. Sereno 461 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Wilson v. Sereno 461 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Second, they maintain that the trial court erred in requiring them to accept a
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Bullock v. Geyer 454 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Bullock v. Geyer 454 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
and Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App.
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
It said: “Reliance is had on the well-settled rule that instructions must be read together, and, it is urged, that, when so read, any conflicts in the instructions disappear * * * It is quite clear * * * that the instructions are not only ambiguous but actually conflicting.” , , we had before us a case of a child crossing a street in front of a bus.
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Flashberg v. Krebs 445 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Flashberg v. Krebs 445 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The question of a , is not involved herein.