Cited by

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

229 citing documents.

Morgan v. Colorado River Indian Tribe 443 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1968
Morgan v. Colorado River Indian Tribe 443 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1968
If the alleged tort-feasor under an identical state of facts had been a state or municipal government, , the Federal Government, 28 U.S.C.A.
Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State 441 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State 441 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Plaintiffs also assert that the statute has no effect following our Supreme Court’s
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
There was testimony from a traffic-control engineer, given without objection, that the failure to post warning signs and reflectors in connection with this bridge “constituted a serious hazard to motorists traveling on that highway.” , the State is held liable for its negligence in the maintenance of highways.
Rhodes v. Hirsch 429 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Rhodes v. Hirsch 429 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
he is not liable since he is the head of a department and has many people working for him.
Veach v. City of Phoenix 427 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1967
Veach v. City of Phoenix 427 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1967
State v. Allred 425 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1967
State v. Allred 425 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1967
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
is the sole authority relied upon by the plaintiffs contending that A.R.S.
Watson v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Watson v. Industrial Commission 411 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
the Arizona Supreme Court terminated the judicially established sovereign immunity.
Whitestone v. Town of South Tucson 410 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Whitestone v. Town of South Tucson 410 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
on the basis of the governmental, public, or quasi-public character of the condemnor, although in some cases liability has been denied under the rule of gov'ernmental immunity, even though malice, bad faith, or unreasonable delay was charged, where the condemnor was a public utility.” While it is true that governmental immunity has been abrogated in Arizona, , and while we recognize that the denial of liability has been predicated on such immunity in some *496 cases, e. g., Manley v. State Highw
State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
13-1454 provides that “A person who maliciously and without probable cause causes a search warrant to be issued and executed, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” , .
Dear v. City of Tempe 400 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Dear v. City of Tempe 400 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Garcia v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Garcia v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
“II The trial court abused its discretion in not granting the plaintiff’s motion for additur or in the alternative a new trial as to the issues of damages.” , discarded the doctrine of governmental immunity.
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. O'GRADY 396 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1964
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. O'GRADY 396 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1964