Cited by

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

127 citing documents.

Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 781 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 781 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Young and Co., , (no fact question presented where company had no right to control sale representative’s schedule, method of sales, or operation of vehicle).
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Danielson v. Superior Court 754 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Danielson v. Superior Court 754 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Young Co., , 8 Wigmore on Evidence § 2388 (McNaughton Rev. 1961).
State v. Tallabas 746 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Tallabas 746 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Young & Co., , the Supreme Court of Arizona held that a person who defended against claims of negligence by asserting that he had suffered a sudden heart attack thereby waived the physician-patient privilege as to previous heart-related treatment.
Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 714 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1986
Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 714 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1986
Young & Co., , this court held that where a defendant had asserted a defense of sudden heart attack, he would not be permitted to assert the physician-patient privilege to bar disclosure of his previous treatment for heart problems.
Buffa v. Scott 708 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Buffa v. Scott 708 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp. 640 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp. 640 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Although appellants concede that workmen’s compensation cases are “not necessarily authority” for cases involving tort concepts of respondeat superior, , we are urged to apply the above stated rule in the present case because workmen’s compensation cases have consistently been used as supporting authority in tort cases and, also, according to the language of a recent tort case, “there are instances when the [workmen’s compensation] principles are
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Throop v. F. E. Young & Company, , , City of Phoenix v. Boggs, 1 Ariz.App.
Driscoll v. Harmon 601 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1979
Sharman v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. 602 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Sharman v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. 602 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Sanderson v. Chapman, 487 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1973).
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 602 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 602 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Butler v. Wong 573 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Butler v. Wong 573 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
E. Young & Co., , is applicable here.
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Throop v. F. E. Young & Co.
Banta v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 544 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1976
Banta v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 544 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1976
In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, 209 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1953), cert.
State v. Superior Court, in & for County of Maricopa 524 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1974
State v. Superior Court, in & for County of Maricopa 524 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1974
Tucson Medical Center Incorporated v. Rowles 520 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Tucson Medical Center Incorporated v. Rowles 520 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
While many Arizona cases have found a waiver of the privilege, , Patania v. Silverstone, 3 Ariz.App.
State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
Throop v. F. E. Young & Co.
Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Anderson v. Gobea 501 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Although we recognize that Workmen’s Compensation 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, Throop v. F. E. Young & Company, , there are instances when the principles are particularly apropos and can be invoked.
Scottsdale Jaycees v. SUPERIOR CT. OF MARICOPA CO. 499 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Scottsdale Jaycees v. SUPERIOR CT. OF MARICOPA CO. 499 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Throop v. F. E. Young & Company
Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Throop v. F. E. Young & Co.
Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corp., 3 Ariz.App.
Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Throop v. F. E. Young & Co., , Annot.
Lewis v. Cooley 480 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971