Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nichols v. Baker, 416 P.2d 584.

66 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Co., )); (“Wantonness implies a reckless indifference to the results of an act.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 501 (Am.
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center 755 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center 755 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Borland v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 709 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Borland v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 709 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 699 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 699 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Livesay v. State 615 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1980
Livesay v. State 615 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1980
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App.
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
1510 , 47 L.Ed.2d 763 (1976)
Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
Smith v. Chapman 564 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1977
It is equally true that a trial court should not remove the issue of wanton negligence from the consideration of the jury unless the evidence thereof is “slight and inconclusive bordering on the realm of conjecture.”
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
Thomas v. Bowman 538 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Thomas v. Bowman 538 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 5, A.R.S.
Townsend v. Whatton 521 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Townsend v. Whatton 521 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
: “ ‘ * * * It is not necessary to the giving of an instruction that the evidence should establish conclusively the hypothesis stated in it; if there is any evidence conducing to establish the assumption it is sufficient to authorize the giving of the instruction, and it is for the jury to find ou
Maffeo v. Wood 493 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Maffeo v. Wood 493 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
: “A person is wantonly negligent if he wilfully does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the plaintiff but
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
The above holding has been cited as authority in several Arizona cases, at 153 , at 586 (1966).
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
It is flagrant and evinces a lawless and destructive spirit.” , cur Supreme Court indicated that a wanton negligence instruction should be given if there is any substantial evidence to support the instruction, though such evidence must be more than slight and inconclusive.