Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boozer v. Arizona Country Club, 434 P.2d 630.

54 citing documents.

Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Williams II, 188 Ariz. at 259-60, 934 P.2d at 1351-52; Heimke, 106 Ariz. at 30, 470 P.2d at 111; P.2d 630 (1967).
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(standard of care requires a golfer about to drive the ball to warn anyone standing within the zone of danger, if that person is not aware of the impending stroke).
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
MH Investment Co. v. Transamerica Title Insurance 785 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
MH Investment Co. v. Transamerica Title Insurance 785 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
IMPROPER WEIGHING OF EVIDENCE Transamerica contends that the trial court made a finding of fact in its ruling on the summary judgment motion and thus impermissibly weighed the evidence
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Ariz. Const, art. 18, § 5
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cook v. Johnston 688 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cook v. Johnston 688 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
the supreme court found insufficient evidence to determine how many degrees from the line of flight the plaintiff was located but stated that a dividing line existed between 0 and 90 degrees beyond which a finding of negligence might be precluded.
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Dupree 665 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Dupree 665 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
Although summary judgment is generally not granted in negligence cases, , “it is proper when the record demonstrates that there are no material issues of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law * * *.”
Tom v. SS Kresge Co., Inc. 633 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Tom v. SS Kresge Co., Inc. 633 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Chernov v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 601 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1979
Chernov v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 601 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1979
We have said before that negligence cases can rarely be disposed of by summary judgment, , because: “In order for the entry of summary judgment to be appropriate there must be no genuine dispute as to any material fact and only one inference can be drawn from the undisputed material facts, and based on the undisputed material facts the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 69 599 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1979
Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 69 599 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1979
I’d say, about twice every week I would see teachers or a janitor telling the kids to get down.” While a summary judgment is not generally appropriate in negligence cases, , it is proper when the record demonstrates that there are no material issues of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Chanay v. Chittenden 563 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1977
Chanay v. Chittenden 563 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1977
Upon such determination, the trial court can apply the law and decide whether to instruct the jury or direct a verdict.”
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , , Flynn v. Lindenfield, 6 Ariz.App.
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Boozer v. Arizona Country , Club, , Wilson v. City of Tucson, 8 Ariz.App.
Gibson v. W.D. Parker Trust 527 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Gibson v. W.D. Parker Trust 527 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Hall v. Motorists Insurance Corporation 509 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1973
Hall v. Motorists Insurance Corporation 509 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1973
Cimino v. Alway 501 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Cimino v. Alway 501 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Cohen v. Sahuaro Petroleum & Asphalt Co. 496 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Cohen v. Sahuaro Petroleum & Asphalt Co. 496 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Blair v. Saguaro Lake Development Co. 495 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Blair v. Saguaro Lake Development Co. 495 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
“Negligence is based on foreseeability,” , and certainly it is not beyond the realm of the foreseeable to imagine that a man very close to the rear of a truck manipulating an “awful heavy” garbage container might lose his balance and come in contact with the truck and the blade if operating.
Merritt v. Walter Pocock Associates Brokers, Inc. 465 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1970
Merritt v. Walter Pocock Associates Brokers, Inc. 465 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1970
we further held that if the material facts, although not in dispute, are uncertain, a summary judgment is improp *394 er.
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
*200 In Boozer v. Arizona Country Club, 102 Ariz, 544, we stated that: “[e]ven in cases where the [trial] judge is of [the] opinion that he will have to direct a verdict for one party or the other on the issues that have been raised, he should ordinarily hear the evidence and direct the verdict rather than attempt to try the case in advance on a motion for summary
Miller v. Western Farms Inv. Co. 460 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1969