Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Massengill v. Yuma County, 456 P.2d 376.

80 citing documents.

Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Austin, 140 Ariz. at 581 , 684 P.2d at 153 , *314
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Ryan, P.2d 376 (1969), and the line of cases that had required a determination that a government tortfeasor’s general duty be narrowed to an individual duty to the injured plaintiff before liability could attach.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(“[W]e conclude that the doctrine in Massengill should be abandoned and that case is overruled.”).
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
set out standards for determining whether a public entity was liable depending on whether the injury was "public” or "private”; that is, based on the specificity of the duty.
Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Overruled Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Subsequently, , by invoking the public duty doctrine.
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Overruled Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
These decisions, however, , , 41 A.L.R.3d 692 (1969), , , 38 A.L.R.4th 1188 (1982) by our supreme court.
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Appellants next argue that appellee’s , for governmental tort liability.
Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 673 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 673 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Appellees moved for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that they could not be found negligent because any duty which might have been owed by them to plaintiffs was a duty owed to the general public and therefore no cause of action could accrue
Brown v. Syson 663 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Brown v. Syson 663 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
The Supreme Court granted the appellants’ petition for review, and departing from precedent, ordered additional memoranda and oral argument on the following questions: , ?
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
We note that this court in Cady interpreted the “narrowing” of the public duty to a , as follows: “The basis of this ‘narrowing’ according to the court was that [ , ] dealt with a failure to act (act of omission) while the Board of Pardons and Paroles performed an affirmative act in releasing the dangerous parolee (an act of commission).” 129 Ariz. at 261 , 630 P.2d at 557 .
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
Chambers v. Western Arizona CATV 638 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1981
Bill Moore Motor Homes, Inc. v. State 629 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bill Moore Motor Homes, Inc. v. State 629 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
3 Having conceded the existence of this duty, the state argues, however, that this is a duty owed to the public in general, a breach of which will not support a
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
We can start our review with the 1969 , which involved the liability of Yuma County for the failure of a Yuma County deputy sheriff to apprehend and arrest a drunken driver under facts from which a jury could conclude that the deputy was negligent in not performing his duty.
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
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Appellee contends that any duty to remove the stalled vehicle was one owed only to the public at large and not to any individual
Oleszczuk v. State 604 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1979
Oleszczuk v. State 604 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1979
*376 , a case wherein law enforcement officers failed to arrest a reckless drunken driver who caused five deaths in an automobile accident, we stated the general rule concerning the duty of governmental agencies and public officers to those injured by their negligence: “ ‘ .
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
Because Counts I and II are not based on a theory of negligence, a “public duty defense,” , is inapplicable.
McCuistion v. City of Huachuca City 594 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
McCuistion v. City of Huachuca City 594 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Huachuca City’s , of the general rule pertaining to governmental agencies and public officers: *343 «* * * [i]f the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure to perform it, or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury, and
Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park 279 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1979
DeHoney v. Hernandez 595 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1979
DeHoney v. Hernandez 595 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1979
if the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure to perform it, or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury, and must be redressed, if at all, in some form of public prosecution.’ [citations omitted]”
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.
DeHoney v. Hernandez 594 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978