Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kennecott Copper Corporation v. McDowell, 413 P.2d 749.

30 citing documents.

Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
App. (1965))); –82 (1966) (recognizing that a directed verdict in favor of an agent who purportedly committed a tort “necessarily releases the principal”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 883 (Am.
White v. Pima County 775 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
White v. Pima County 775 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Diedrich v. Farnsworth, 3 Ariz.App.
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1987
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1987
-82 , (if a principal’s liability is solely derivative, a directed verdict in favor of an agent who performs a tortious act necessarily releases the principal); -70 , (where negligence action was dismissed with prejudice a
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Porras v. Campbell Sales Co. 589 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Porras v. Campbell Sales Co. 589 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , and most recently, L. H. Bell & Associates
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated 550 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1976
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated 550 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1976
[expert] evidence of the possibility of the existence of the causal relationship together with other evidence or circumstances indicating such relationship, the finding that the accident caused the injury will be sustained.’ [citation omitted].”
L. H. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Granger 543 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1975
L. H. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Granger 543 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1975
Rigney v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 499 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Rigney v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 499 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Green Reservoir Flood Control District v. Willmoth 489 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Green Reservoir Flood Control District v. Willmoth 489 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Wise v. Wise 481 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Wise v. Wise 481 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
As to appellant’s argument that this encourages illegal activity by unhappy parents, we refer to a quote from Rodgers, supra, , : “As to these facts we are disposed towards following the approach of the *127 State of California wherein it is said that while an act of misconduct or malfeasance should he related to the fitness of a parent to be a suitable custodian, such does not, as an absolute rule, prohibit a court from reexami
Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Cf. O. S. Stapley Company v. Miller, supra; , , Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Company, supra; Smith v. Hobart Mfg.
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
That this liability is one not within the area of the law of negligence but is one rather lying in the area of “strict liability”
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Roman Catholic Church, , .
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tucson, Inc. v. Fitzgerald 413 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tucson, Inc. v. Fitzgerald 413 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. McDowell, Ariz.