Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brooks v. Southern Pacific Company, 466 P.2d 736.

39 citing documents.

Wallace v. Irving Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Wallace v. Irving Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., — was well-served in the immediate case by the denial of leave to amend.
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
The legitimate puiposes of statutes of limitations are threefold: (1) to protect defendants from stale claims, , (pursuit of a claim after an unreasonable amount of time may be thwarted when evidence may have been lost or witnesses’ memories have faded); (2) to protect defendants from insecurity— economic, psychological, or both, Comment, Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 HARV.L
Pargman v. Vickers 96 P.3d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pargman v. Vickers 96 P.3d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Ritchie , our supreme court explained that the "legitimate purposes” of statutes of limitations are: (1) to protect defendants from stale claims, , (pursuit of a claim after an unreasonable amount of time may be thwarted when evidence may have been lost or witnesses’ memories have faded); (2) to protect defendants from insecurity — economic, psychological, or both; Comment, Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 HARV.
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
However, this policy may be outweighed “where the interests of justice require vindication of the plaintiffs rights.” , quoting Burnett v. New York Cent.
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides 799 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1990
Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides 799 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1990
The legitimate purposes of statutes of limitations are threefold: (1) to protect defendants from stale claims, , (pursuit of a claim after an unreasonable amount of time may be thwarted when evidence may have been lost or witnesses’ memories have faded); (2) to protect defendants from insecurity— economic, psychological, or both, Comment, Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 HARV.L
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
Brandler v. Manuel Trevizo Hay Co. 740 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Brandler v. Manuel Trevizo Hay Co. 740 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, , Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 142, comment d (1971).
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
1050 , 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965)
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Criticized Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Brooks v. Southern Pacific Company, 105 Ariz. *172 442
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In line with the spirit and reasoning of Burnett , , held as a matter of federal law that the limitation period of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act may be tolled *257 by reason of plaintiff’s incompetency.
Dicenso v. BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING CO., ETC. 643 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1982
Dicenso v. BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING CO., ETC. 643 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1982
This policy is sound and necessary for the orderly administration of justice.”
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
Gregory v. Porterfield 548 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gregory v. Porterfield 548 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Geiler v. Arizona Bank 537 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Geiler v. Arizona Bank 537 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by