Cited by

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

229 citing documents.

Watts v. State 566 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grande v. State 565 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Grande v. State 565 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
The second argument advanced is that it is inconsistent for Arizona to have abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity, , for negligence by state employees and yet to grant an immunity where the harm is afflicted intentionally or with malice.
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 550 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 550 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
It is appellants’ contention that this doctrine of quasi judicial immunity cannot stand in the face of our Supreme Court’s
Nieting v. Blondell 235 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1975
City of Tucson v. Gastelum 541 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
City of Tucson v. Gastelum 541 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
case at bar, damages are assessed after the works have been constructed, we think the proper measure of gross damages is the value of the part taken together with all dam *131 , 202 P. 237 (1921), , : “The authorities are unanimous to the effect that when the damages are assessed before the taking, nothing can be included for wrongful or negligent acts upon the theory that they may occur, but the damages are limited to such as necessarily arise from a lawful taking and a proper construction
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Elkins v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District 524 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Elkins v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District 524 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
swept away the doctrine of governmental immunity leaving only irrigation districts with negligence immunity.
Burns v. Burns 519 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Burns v. Burns 519 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Delarosa v. State 518 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Delarosa v. State 518 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
22 , , [imposing liability for failure to properly maintain the highway by removing old and misleading directional signs where an old highway and a new highway intersected].
Huebner v. Deuchle 514 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1973
Huebner v. Deuchle 514 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1973
Duran v. City of Tucson 509 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Duran v. City of Tucson 509 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
inst one with whom the agent or employee is in privity, or with whom he is dealing or is otherwise in contact in a direct transaction or confrontation.” Although the Florida rule would be a basis for imposing liability upon a governmental body in Arizona
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 503 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1972
Overruled City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 503 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1972
See also, Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n.
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
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
the Supreme Court abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity from tort suits.
Windauer v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Windauer v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Necessary entrenchments upon this doctrine, to which the common law gave birth, lie appropriately within the domain of appellate courts
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Williams 472 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Williams 472 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Therefore by case law, Arizona has no governmental immunity and is subject to tort actions generally
Lueck v. Superior Court, County of Cochise 469 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1970
Lueck v. Superior Court, County of Cochise 469 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1970
Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
Arizona State Highway Department v. Bechtold 460 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1969
We held in Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n., , that the State may be liable in tort for the negligent acts of its employees.
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Massengill, , , , to hold that a county could be liable for failing to exercise a duty to make an arrest for a traffic offense committed in the presence of a deputy sheriff.
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
There has been much discussion, by the plaintiffs, of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, , ; , ; , .
State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
A dismissal of this action on the ground that the state was immune to suit was reversed by this Court, , and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
holding a municipality was not liable for the acts of a police officer in the line of duty, rested upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity
State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
the governmental immunity doctrine was judicially abrogated in this state.