Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schwartz v. Schwartz, 447 P.2d 254.

57 citing documents.

ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
abrog’d on other grounds
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
*517 (rejecting the doctrine of lex loci delicti and adopting the “most significant relationship” theory of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971)), overruled on other grounds
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971); -65 , -57 (1968) (“The local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort.”), overruled on other grounds
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“The determination of which state has the most significant contacts is primarily qualitative not quantitative.”
Lucero v. Valdez 884 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lucero v. Valdez 884 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
As a substantive matter, a deficiency action is governed by Arizona choice of law rules, , this court expressly adopted the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as our guide in resolving choice of law questions.
Hoeller v. Riverside Resort Hotel 820 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hoeller v. Riverside Resort Hotel 820 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- , overruled on other grounds, , the Arizona Supreme Court adopted the “grouping of contacts” or “most significant relationship” approach of the 1968 draft of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as the rule for determining cho
Bates v. Superior Court, Maricopa County 749 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1988
Bates v. Superior Court, Maricopa County 749 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1988
Ambrose v. Illinois-California Express, Inc. 729 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ambrose v. Illinois-California Express, Inc. 729 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
(discarding the doctrine of lex loci delicti).
Bryant v. Silverman 703 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1985
Bryant v. Silverman 703 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1985
(discarding the doctrine of lex loci *43 delicti).
McGough v. Ins. Co. of North America 691 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
McGough v. Ins. Co. of North America 691 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hoover v. First Interstate Bank 682 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hoover v. First Interstate Bank 682 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
vacated on other grounds, , In re Vadlamudi Estate, 183 N.J.Super.
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Wendelken v. Superior Court in and for Pima 671 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1983
Wendelken v. Superior Court in and for Pima 671 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1983
this Court adopted the rules embodied in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as the rules for Arizona.
Fernandez v. Romo 646 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1982
Fernandez v. Romo 646 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1982
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1979
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1979
Gordon v. Kramer 604 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gordon v. Kramer 604 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Moore v. Montes, 22 Ariz.App.
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
173 (1971), provides: “The law selected by application of the rule of § 145 determines whether one tortfeasor has a right to contribution or indemnity against another tortfeasor.” , adopted the contact theory which is expressed in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Sec.
Avila v. Chamberlain 580 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Avila v. Chamberlain 580 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
His position was that applying the “contacts theory” , the laws of the State of Sonora, Mexico would govern this litigation.
Griesmer v. Griesmer 570 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Griesmer v. Griesmer 570 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Yuma County Attorney v. McGuire 532 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1975
Moore v. Montes 529 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Moore v. Montes 529 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Burns v. Burns 526 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1974
Burns v. Burns 526 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1974
this court re-affirmed that Arizona followed the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity.
Burns v. Burns 519 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Burns v. Burns 519 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
The *339 , wherein the court stated: “Arizona has adhered to the common law position that interspousal tort suits are not permitted.” 103 Ariz. at 563 , 447 P.2d at 255 .
Huebner v. Deuchle 514 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1973
Huebner v. Deuchle 514 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1973
Arizona has adhered to the common law position that interspousal tort suits are not permitted.”
Huebner v. Deuchle 501 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972