Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., 428 P.2d 990.

93 citing documents.

Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 642 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 642 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
We also find the case of Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , to be instructive on this duty issue.
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
see Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
We adopted this rule in Shannon v. Butter Homes, Inc., , with the exception that there is liability if the contractor’s work creates an inherently dangerous condition.
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
E. g., , Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , Barry v. Southern Pac.
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Parish v. Truman 603 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Parish v. Truman 603 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , , Downey v. Lackey, 11 Ariz.App.
Hicks v. Superstition Mountain Post No. 9399 601 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
Hicks v. Superstition Mountain Post No. 9399 601 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Forbes v. Romo 601 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Forbes v. Romo 601 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
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
Bisnett v. Mowder 560 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Bisnett v. Mowder 560 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Robles v. Severyn 504 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Robles v. Severyn 504 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
We need not concern ourselves with the Rowland rationale because we are committed to the rule set forth by our Supreme Court in Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , i. e., that a landowner’s duty to a person on his property is determined by the person’s status.
TUCSON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED v. Schwartz 487 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
TUCSON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED v. Schwartz 487 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
130 (1936); Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. 489 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. 489 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , ; Annot., 26 A.L.R.3d 309 .
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Defendant further complains that the doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only to trespassing children and not to child licensees or invitees as the court instructed and cites Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , MacNeil v. Perkins, supra, , as supporting this proposition.
Brosie v. Stockton 468 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1970
Brosie v. Stockton 468 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1970
Conversely, where the extraneous matters neither add to nor subtract from the deficiency of the pleading, the motion for summary judgment will be treated as “either a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), or a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.” Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , , 26 A.L.R.3d 309 .
Downey v. Lackey 466 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Downey v. Lackey 466 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
LEGAL DUTY OWED TO APPELLANT Having established the legal status of the appellant, we find that in the case of Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , the duty imposed upon the possessor of the land toward a licensee is not to make the premises safe but merely to refrain from knowingly letting the licensee run upon a hidden peril, or wantonly or willfully causing harm to the licensee.
Eck v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. 453 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Eck v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. 453 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
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
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc, , , , 19 A.L.R.3d 1 (1966); Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Company
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 447 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1968
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 447 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1968
In the recent case of Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. , we stated: “The liability of a manufacturer of an article is in tort ( , , , ), and it is not assumed by agreement but i
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
.” , , filed 14 June 1967.
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
We find no Arizona Supreme Court case specifically holding that strict tort liability applies in Arizona, but language in the recent case of Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , indicates that the Supreme Court approves this doctrine.