Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland, 466 P.2d 740.

92 citing documents.

GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Co. v. Noland , , 455, , 749 (1970).
Gonzalez v. Mat Const Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Mat Const Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“The general rule is that the owner of premises owes to the servant of the independent contractor employed to perform work on his premises the duty to avoid endangering him by his own negligence or affirmative act, but owes no duty to protect him from the negligence of his own master.”) (citations
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor); Restatement § 409 cmt.
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. P’ship, -91 , -90 (App.1991).
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Vega v. Griffiths Construction, Inc. 833 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership 831 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership 831 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 800 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1990
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 800 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1990
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Parks v. Atkinson, 19 Ariz.App.
Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Udall & Livermore, Arizona Practice, Law of Evidence § 91 (1982).
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hernandez v. State 647 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hernandez v. State 647 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
McFarlin v. Hall 619 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1980
McFarlin v. Hall 619 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1980
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
E. L. Jones *120 , German v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company, 11 Ariz.App.
Currie v. Sechrist 581 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Currie v. Sechrist 581 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Bible v. First National Bank of Rawlins; W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 71 (4th ed. 1971); Annot., 18 A.L.R.
Taylor v. Cate 573 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1977
Taylor v. Cate 573 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1977
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
” We believe appellant’s evidence shows at most, a possibility that the inadequate lighting and security was a substantial factor in bringing about Leesa’s abduction, but does not rise to the level of a reasonable probability.
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
239 , , , we find ample, if not overwhelming support for the conclusions that Sequoia was negligent in its construction of the ROPS, that the ROPS was defective when it left Sequoia after manufacture, and that the defect made th
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
In deciding the issue of whether there was reasonable evidence of negligence, the Court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the trial, , and if there is evidence to support the judgment, it will be sustained.