Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Throop v. FE Young and Company, 382 P.2d 560.

127 citing documents.

In Re: Mh 2025-001972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Mh 2025-001972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Young & Co., to argue he is not using privilege as both a sword and shield.
Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Young & Co., –58 (1963) (finding “highly material” claim of “sudden” heart attack waived privilege regarding records of ongoing treatment for heart problems).
Anderson v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Anderson v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Young & Co., (party can waive privilege by failing to properly object at trial).
Robert W. Baird & Co. v. Whitten 418 P.3d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Robert W. Baird & Co. v. Whitten 418 P.3d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Young & Co. , , 158, , 572 (1963).
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC 381 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC 381 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Young & Co., 153 , (concluding that an employment relationship for common-law tort purposes is determined by, among other things, the level of control the alleged employer has chosen to exert over the alleged employee, but noting that “Workers’] Compensation cases and cases arising under similar social le
Gary Abeyta v. Sierra Tucson, Inc. and Heidi Sonntag 319 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Gary Abeyta v. Sierra Tucson, Inc. and Heidi Sonntag 319 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Young & Co., quoting 8 Wigmore on Evidence § 2388, at 855 (McNaughton Rev. 1961), in which it had ruled that a waiver occurs when a privileged claimant’s conduct creates a situation in which “‘it would be unfair and inconsistent to permit the retention of the privilege.’” In other words, the privile
Accomazzo v. Kemp 319 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Accomazzo v. Kemp 319 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Robarge, 131 Ariz. at 282, 640 P.2d at 213; see also Throop v. F. E. Young & Co., (noting that workers’ compensation cases are not necessarily authority for determining common-law liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior).
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Young & Co., , (“Workers’] [compensation eases and cases arising under similar social legislation are not necessarily authority for principles giving rise to common-law liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.”)).
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Criticized Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Young & Co., , , declined to follow on other grounds by Tarron v. Bowen Machine & Fabricating, Inc., , ).
Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
Young & Co., 94 Ariz. 146, 150–51, –63 (1963); –36, –38 (1937).
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Young & Co., (“Work[ers’] [c]ompensation cases and cases arising under similar social legislation are not necessarily authority for principles giving rise to common-law liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.”); (App. 19
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Young & Co., 94 Ariz. 146, 150
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Young & Co., -58 , -68 (1963) (privilege impliedly waived when party defended by denying negligence and claiming sudden heart attack as cause of automobile accident); , (when client does not treat information divulged to counsel “as
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
Young & Co., , (citing 8 John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2388, at 855 (J. McNaughton rev. ed.1961)); , review vacated as improvidently granted ( , (1
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Young & Co., , for example, a wrongful death action arising out of a two-car, head-on collision, was one of the first eases in which an Arizona appellate court found that a privilege had been impliedly waived.
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Young and Co., , (quoting 8 Wigmore on Evidence § 2388, at 855 (1961)).
McDaniel v. Troy Design Services Co. 925 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
McDaniel v. Troy Design Services Co. 925 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO 909 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO 909 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Young and Co., -58 , -68 (1963) (“The claim of privilege to buttress such a [seemingly false] position is contrary to the spirit of the privilege and the purpose of trials to ascertain the truth”).
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Young & Co., -51 , defines a servant as “a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other’s control or right to control.” The Restatement lists several additional factors, none of whi
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
Rodriguez v. Schlittenhart 780 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Rodriguez v. Schlittenhart 780 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989