Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136.

120 citing documents.

Transamerica Insurance Company v. McKee 551 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company, 1 Ariz.App.
Ordway v. Pickrell 543 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1975
Ordway v. Pickrell 543 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1975
We held in Farmer that the primary purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act “is to prevent financial distress to persons involved in accidents on the highways with uninsured motorists,”
Wauneka v. Campbell 526 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Wauneka v. Campbell 526 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The purpose of this law is to compensate persons injured in automobile accidents, , and not to insulate reckless drivers from possible punitive damage awards.
Pesqueria v. Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of America 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Pesqueria v. FACTORY MUT. LIAB. INS. CO. OF AMER. 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Pesqueria v. FACTORY MUT. LIAB. INS. CO. OF AMER. 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Pesqueria v. Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of America 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co. 490 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co. 490 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
the primary purpose of the financial responsibility laws is “the providing of security against uncompensated damages arising from operation of motor vehicles on our highways.” Admittedly, this purpose was arrived at in an opinion which upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s Financial Responsib
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 486 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 486 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1971
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini 482 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini 482 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Reutzel v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 186 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1971
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 474 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 474 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
This public policy has been stated as follows: “The Financial Responsibility Act has for its principal purpose the protection of the public using the highways from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons.”
Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
The appellee places great emphasis on the public policy relating to liability insurance as enumerated by decision of this court, , ; , , , , in support .of his position that such policy is to provide as much insurance protection as possible, and cites Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company, 8 Ariz.App.
Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 467 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 467 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
The principal purpose of the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act is: “ * * * the protection of the public using the highways from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons.” , Uninsured motorist coverage is meant to provide some financial recompense to innocent persons who receive injuries, and to the dependents of those who lose their lives through the wrongful conduct of an uninsured and financially irresponsible motorist who cannot b
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Where there is doubt in the legislative language, it is the court’s duty to reconcile the language with the constitutional provision, , , and construe the statute in such a manner that it will be constitutional if possible, , .
Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
we stated: “The Financial Responsibility Act has for its principal purpose the protection of the public using the highways from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons.” In light of that stated purpose, the question is whether or not t
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
we stated: "The Financial Responsibility Act has for its principal purpose the protection of the public using the highways from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons."
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
ower, , , we held that “an omnibus clause is a part of every motor vehicle liability policy, by whatever name it may be called.” , , in discussing the failure of the insured to notify the insurer of the *558 filing of a suit against the insured as required by its policy, we stated: “In Schecter v. Killingsworth, supra [ , ], we further stated that the primary purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act was ‘the providing of security against uncompensated damages arising from operation of motor v
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 , 28 S.Ct.
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clayton 440 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1968
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clayton 440 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1968
we said: “Where the basis upon which this act has been declared constitutional is, ‘preventing financial hardship and possible reliance upon the welfare agencies,’ we cannot constitutionally allow artful distinctions between ‘motor vehicle liability policy,’ ‘automobile liability policy’ or ‘policy of
Burri Ex Rel. Carpenter v. Campbell 434 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1967
Burri Ex Rel. Carpenter v. Campbell 434 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1967
Campbell v. Chatwin 428 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 428 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1967