Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 381 P.2d 107.

229 citing documents.

Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n, -89 , -12 (1963).
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
See Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n, , (sovereign immunity doctrine abolished); see also Freightways, 129 Ariz. at 247-48 , 630 P.2d at 543-44 .
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
¶ 8 Moreover, the duty imposed by § 23-424 is consistent with Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n, , , and the legislative purpose set forth in the immunity statute, A.R.S.
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
( , ); Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Ryan, 134 Ariz. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598
Fidelty Security Life Insurance v. State 935 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Fidelty Security Life Insurance v. State 935 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n, , the Arizona Supreme Court reversed the prior common law and abolished governmental immunity.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n, , ).
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
that, even for governmental entities, "where negligence is the proximate cause of injury, the rule is liability and immunity is the exception."
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 928 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 928 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
3 We note at the outset, however, “that where negligence is the proximate cause of injury, the rule is liability and immunity is the exception.” Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the court reaffirmed its decision in Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n, , severely limiting the common law defense of governmental tort immunity, and held that immunity is a defense “only when its application is necessary to avoid a severe hampering or thwarting of established public policy.” 134 Ariz. at 311 , 656 P.2d at 600 .
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
202 P. 237 (1921), rev’d on other grounds, , and City of Tucson v. Gastelum, 25 Ariz.App.
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appellant also argues that governmental immunity was abolished in Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
the Arizona Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that government is subject to tort liability and immunity is the exception
State v. Peruskov 800 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Peruskov 800 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 795 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1990
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 795 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1990
Legislative History of Act In 1982, , which held that when a government entity or employee is a defendant in a tort action, “the rule is liability and immunity is the exception.”
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
we discarded the doctrine of sovereign immunity, noting: There is perhaps no doctrine more firmly established than the principle that liability follows tortious wrongdoing; that where negligence is the proximate cause of injury, the rule is liability and immunity is the exception ...
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
“the rule is liability and [sovereign] immunity is the exception.” , we suggested the propriety of legislative involvement in the handling of claims against governmental entities.
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In so holding, we are mindful of the long line of cases following the supreme court’s , which have permitted suits against the state and its subdivisions for damages resulting from tortious conduct.
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 772 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1989
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 772 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1989
Although this court does not favor bestowing immunities from tort liability for negligence on preferred classes of defendants, , , substantial policy considerations militate in favor of recognizing immunity when a tribe conducts tribal business through a tribal economic entity.
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ryan did not abolish sovereign immunity