Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Holtz v. Holder, 418 P.2d 584.

42 citing documents.

Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 3-4, 18, 26, -11, 913-14, 915-16 (1998) (sequential car accidents; extent of damage caused by each unknown); -49, 251, -86, 588 (1966) (sequential car accidents; cause in fact and extent of damages caused by each defendant unknown); -4, 5 (Cal.
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In this motion, Appellants argued that the Schlecht case had long been superseded by the development of the “single injury” , and that under this rule, defendants, not plaintiffs, bear the burden of proving what portion of the harm was caused by their conduct.
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
At issue in Piner was the continued viability of the “indivisible injury”
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Trojanovich v. Marshall, supra.
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
From this premise, they go on to argue that the doctrine of joint and several liability, in cases where the actions of several tortfeasors who were not acting in concert contributed to an indivisible injury, was first recognized in Arizona in 1966
Parker v. Vanell 824 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1992
Parker v. Vanell 824 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1992
(adoption of single injury rule which imposes joint and several liability); Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 47, at 328 (5th ed. 1984) (“a defendant might be liable for the entire loss sustained by the plaintiff, even though the defendant’s act concurred or combined with that of another wrongdoer to
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potts v. Litt 828 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Potts v. Litt 828 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Under that rule, two or more independent tortfeasors who have caused injuries to a plaintiff are liable for all the plaintiff’s damages where “ ‘it is not reasonably possible to make a division of the damage caused by the separate acts of negligence____’” , quoting Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266, 1271-72 , 110 N.W.2d 321, 324 (1961).
Lindsey v. University of Arizona 754 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lindsey v. University of Arizona 754 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Gehres v. City of Phoenix 753 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Gehres v. City of Phoenix 753 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
the supreme court stated the policy reason for this rule: The “single injury” rule is based on the proposition that it is more desirable, as a matter of policy, for an injured and innocent plaintiff to recover his entire damages jointly and severally from independent tortfeasors, one of whom may
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cy. 681 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1984
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cy. 681 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1984
(adopting the indivisible injury rule).
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
: “Where an erroneous instruction has been given on the law, and a correct instruction might have produced a different result, the error is not cured by the fact that the jury might have found for the prevailing party on some basis unaffected by the error.” Id.
Fredericks v. Thunderbird Bank 575 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fredericks v. Thunderbird Bank 575 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The Arizona Supreme Court adopted the single
Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Kovrig v. Vasquez 456 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Noland v. Wootan 427 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
Noland v. Wootan 427 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
We have stated recently, “Where an erroneous instruction has been given on the law, and a correct instruction might have produced a different result, the error is not cured by the fact that the jury might have found for the prevailing party on some basis unaffected by the error.”