Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Veach v. City of Phoenix, 427 P.2d 335.

39 citing documents.

Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶10 Based upon its broad interpretation of the statutory language, TDB argues a municipality acting in its capacity as a water utility must provide service to “all who reasonably require service within its area of actual operation.” To support its argument, P.2d 335 (1967), P.2d 342 (1948), P.2d 1021 (1969).
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
It is not, therefore, one of the few non-delegable duties.2 ¶19 P.2d 335 (1967), establishes Tempe’s duty to provide emergency services.
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bates v. Bates, 1 Ariz.App.
Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 629 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 629 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
as an illustration of this concept: “[A] municipality has no absolute duty to provide water for fire protection purposes to its inhabitants.
Bagley v. State 595 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1979
Bagley v. State 595 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1979
Besserman v. Town of Paradise Valley, Inc., , Ivicevic v. City of Glendale, 26 Ariz.App.
McGeorge v. City of Phoenix 572 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
McGeorge v. City of Phoenix 572 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
By our decisions in Stone, supra [ , ], Veach, supra, [ , ], and Patterson, supra [ , ], we stripped the shackles of sovereign immunity from persons seeking redress for negligent injuries caused by public officers, but we did not relieve claimants of the responsibility of establishing, all the elements of
Hollar v. Wright 566 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Hollar v. Wright 566 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
(city operated water system).
Ivicevic v. City of Glendale 549 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ivicevic v. City of Glendale 549 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
(negligent repair of malfunctioning traffic signal); , (failure to provide water for firefighting purposes); City of Phoenix v. Whiting, 10 Ariz.App.
Nieting v. Blondell 235 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1975
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Lopez v. Arizona Water Company, Inc. 530 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Lopez v. Arizona Water Company, Inc. 530 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Plaintiffs’ position, however
Duran v. City of Tucson 509 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Duran v. City of Tucson 509 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
protect the part of New York City against further fire and explosion aboard the ship Alva Cape thereby causing an explosion aboard the ship, the court applied the Schuster doctrine stating the “power to command obedience created a reciprocal duty on the part of the Commissioner to exercise due care in the issuance of his order.” , as another example of the narrowing of a public duty into an obligation owed specially to an individual.
Savard v. Selby 508 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Savard v. Selby 508 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Massengill, , , , to hold that a county could be liable for failing to exercise a duty to make an arrest for a traffic offense committed in the presence of a deputy sheriff.
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
There has been much discussion, by the plaintiffs, of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, , ; , ; , .
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Travaini v. Maricopa County 450 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Travaini v. Maricopa County 450 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
in the City of Phoenix; we have held that in operating a water system, a city is a public service corporation, (citations) It also appears to be the rule that a public service corporation is under a legal obligation to render adequate service impartially and without discrimination to all members of the general public to whon its scope of operation extends, (citations).”