Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boies v. Cole, 407 P.2d 917.

49 citing documents.

Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. 2025
Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. 2025
Inc. v. Edais Eng’g Inc., ¶ 18 n.1 (2022); (“A sheriff may not be held for punitive damages for the acts of his deputy unless he has directed, participated in, acquiesced or ratified those acts.” (emphasis added)); (“It is necessary, therefore, in an action against the sheriff, as such, for damages for a fals
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986
4 Beginning in 1965 this Court held that “[t]he measure of damages is no longer limited to pecuniary damages, but also includes allowance for such things as loss of companionship, comfort, and guidance.”
Bryant v. Silverman 703 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1985
Bryant v. Silverman 703 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Similarly, Arizona courts have allowed the jury to consider loss of companionship, comfort and guidance, , survivor’s mental suffering, pain and shock, , emotional problems of children caused by loss of the father, , and decedent’s prospective earning capaci
Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen 696 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen 696 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Forquer v. Pinal County 526 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Forquer v. Pinal County 526 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lueck v. Superior Court, County of Cochise 469 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 466 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
occasioned the beneficiaries by reason of his death, which may be considered and taken into account by the jury and are elements for which damages may be given to the statutory beneficiaries even though they may have had no reasonable expectancy of support from the decedent had he not been killed.” While the question presented was not the same as in the instant case, this Court, , , stated that in a wrongful-death action: “ * * * The measure of damages is no longer limited to pecuniary damages,
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
* * * ” Our Supreme Court, , has held that the language of this statute permits recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions.
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
states that in a wrongful death action: “The measure of damages is no longer limited' to pecuniary damages, but also includes allowance for such things as loss of companionship, comfort and guidance.” 99 Ariz. at 203 , 407 P.2d at 920 .
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hing v. Youtsey 460 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
D, supra, calling for distribution according to the laws of intestate succession, and the provision of § 12-613 that “ * * * the jury shall give such damages as it deems fair and just with reference to the injury resulting from the death to the surviving parties who may be entitled to recover * * * » , our Supreme Court construed this last provision: “Thus, the compensation which is to be awarded under the 1956 amendment [the Wrongful Death Act as it is quoted supra] is measured by the injury to
State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
The language in no way modifies or overrules this Court’s
Kemp v. Pinal County 442 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Kemp v. Pinal County 442 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
And since the surviving parties may recover for the loss of decedent’s companionship, comfort, and guidance, , decedent’s character in this regard in relationship to the surviving parties is a matter in issue.
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
our Supreme Court stated (in dictum): “In Arizona contributory negligence of the slightest degree * * * ‘may’ or ‘should’ defeat recovery * * (Emphasis added) If proper objection had been made to the subject instruction, we assume the trial court would have corrected any errors in the
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
Our Supreme Court has said that in a wrongful death action such as this, the jury should consider “loss of companionship, comfort and guidance.”
Dogarin v. Connor 433 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Dogarin v. Connor 433 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Our Supreme Court has declared the law to be: “A sheriff may not be held for punitive damages for the acts of his deputy unless he has directed, participated in, acquiesced or ratified those acts.”
State v. Ovens 422 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Ovens 422 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Southern Pacific Company v. Barnes, 3 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Company v. Barnes 415 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Southern Pacific Company v. Barnes 415 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966