Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Patterson v. City of Phoenix, 436 P.2d 613.

29 citing documents.

Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
551, 555, 558 (1986) (applying the Ryan principles in concluding a state employee is protected by qualified immunity for discretionary acts); (“It has been recognized that in Arizona a police officer acting within the scope of his authority has at least a conditional immunity from civil liability.”) (-71 (1968)); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895D (1979) (“A public officer acting within the general scope of his authority is not subject to tort liability for an administrative act or omission if
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Furrh v. Arizona Bd. of Regents 676 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Furrh v. Arizona Bd. of Regents 676 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
and discussed in two annotations, 30 A.L.R.3d 523 at 553 and 92 A.L.R.2d 570 at 573 and 579.
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
(officer investigating offense tells employer of suspect’s alleged involvement, held conditional privilege).
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, supra
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.
SH Kress and Company v. Self 526 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
SH Kress and Company v. Self 526 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
the Supreme Court stated that liability of the city attaches where the employee police officer is acting within the scope of the employment.
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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.
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 456 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1969
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 456 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1969
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
our Supreme Court held that, although police officers “ * * * exercise some discretion in the execution of their duties * * , , the employer municipality is liable for their tortious acts.
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and compare Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, 55 Cal.2d 211 , 11 Cal.Rptr.