Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morgan v. Hays, 426 P.2d 647.

30 citing documents.

VALENCIA v. ALLEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
VALENCIA v. ALLEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
( (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting)).
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
This inquiry is consistent with the anti- abrogation clause’s language, which does not limit itself to protecting specific “causes of action” but rather protects “the right of action.” Because a right of action is “merely the right to pursue a remedy,” (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Standard Oil Co., 21 F. Supp. 645, 660 (S.D.
M-11 Ltd. Partnership v. Gommard 330 P.3d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
M-11 Ltd. Partnership v. Gommard 330 P.3d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 118 (1998)
Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶10 “[A] court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 118 (1998); see also Todd v. Todd, 137
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Bonner v. Minico, Inc., P.2d 598 (1988); P.2d 647 (1967); State ex rel.
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
Bonner v. Minico, Inc. 766 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1988
To resolve this question, the court allowed the parties to conduct additional discovery, file supplemental memoranda, and orally argue whether Ford’s actions constituted “wilful misconduct.” , , cert.
Bonner v. Minico Inc. 766 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bonner v. Minico Inc. 766 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
the Arizona Supreme Court held that where the issue of workmen’s compensation coverage has been raised in a negligence action against an employer, the trial court must determine whether or not it has jurisdiction of the action before proceeding to trial.
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Prior to the jury trial, the trial' court tried this issue without a , and determined that Mrs. Roer was not an employee.
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Diamond Lazy K Guest Ranch, Inc. 501 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Diamond Lazy K Guest Ranch, Inc. 501 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The respondent Berry contends that Ream was incorrectly decided
Morgan v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. 463 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morgan v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. 463 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
This prior decision is Morgan v. Hays and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., , cert.
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Taylor v. Hubbell, 188 F.2d 106 (9 Cir. 1951); , cert.
Heeter v. Moore Drug Company 448 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1968
Heeter v. Moore Drug Company 448 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1968