DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McNelis v. Bruce, 367 P.2d 625.

40 citing documents.

  • Swift Transportation Co of Az v. Hon. Carman Ariz. 2022
  • Swift Transportation Co of Az v. Hon. Carman Ariz. 2022
    CARMAN/ (“[Punitive] damages are applicable where there is a ‘reckless indifference to the interests of others.’” ()).
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
  • Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance 723 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1986
  • Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance 723 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1986
    Joseph’s Hospital, , (3) Evil intent or bad motive, , , (4) Gross negligence, , 249 P. 751 (1926); , 94 P. 1094 (1908); (5) Wanton, reckless or willful acts, Lutfy v. R.D.
  • Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    This distinction between the two purposes for incorporating an agreement into a decree was expressed in greater detail by the California Supreme Court in Flynn v. Flynn, 42 Cal.2d 55 , a -72
  • Schmidt v. American Leasco 679 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Schmidt v. American Leasco 679 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Huggins v. Deinhard 621 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Huggins v. Deinhard 621 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. D’Ascoli, , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 (1979).
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1978
    we held that the mere approval of a property settlement agreement in a divorce decree does not operate to make it a part of and enforceable as a decree.
  • Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
  • Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Helber v. Frazelle 575 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Marshick v. Marshick 545 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    reaffirms the rule that the question of merger depends on the intention of the parties and the court.
  • Imports v. Orton 527 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Imports v. Orton 527 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    mpany did not turn back the mileage on a car, and in Lewis v. Worldwide Imports, Inc., supra, where the defendant sold a previously wrecked car as ‘a demonstrator in the condition of a new car,’ we believe that a review of the record herein supports a jury finding that O’Rielly conducted itself with ‘reckless indifference to the interests of others,’ Nielsen v. Flashberg, supra; , ; and that such conduct is in violation of societal interest to such an extent as to warrant punishment so as to det
  • Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 521 P.2d 1119 Ariz. 1974
  • Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 521 P.2d 1119 Ariz. 1974
    Punitive damages should be awarded where the conduct of the wrongdoer is wanton, reckless or shows spite or ill-will, Lufty v. R. D. Roper & Sons Motor Co., , or where there is a reckless indifference to the interests of others
  • Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
  • Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
    Such damages are applicable where there is a ‘reckless indifference to the interest of others.’ , ; Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 908, Comment b.”
  • City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 503 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1972
  • City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 503 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1972
  • King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    mpany did not turn back the mileage on a car, and in Lewis v. Worldwide Imports, Inc., supra, where the defendant sold a previously wrecked car as “a demonstrator in the condition of a new car,” we believe that a review of the record herein supports á jury finding that O’Rielly conducted itself with “reckless indifference to the interests of others,” Nielson v. Flashberg, supra; , and that such conduct is in violation of societal interests to such an extent as to warrant punishment so as to dete
  • Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Collins v. Dilcher 450 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1969
  • Collins v. Dilcher 450 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1969
    in speaking of punitive damages, we held: “* * * Such damages are for ‘outrageous conduct, that is, for acts done with a bad motive or with a reckless indifference to the interests of others.’ Restatement of the Law, Torts § 908, Comment b.” 90 Ariz. at p. 269 , 367 P.2d at p. 630 .
  • Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Earley v. Earley 430 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
  • Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
    Such damages are applicable where there is a “reckless indifference to the interests of others.” , ; Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 908, Comment b. Defendant’s indifference was amply brought out by his own testimony at the trial.
  • Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
  • Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
    requires the property settlement to be “actually incorporated” in the decree, and it can be done by reference as was done in the McNelis case.