Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580.

108 citing documents.

Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 153 Ariz. 38, 43, accord Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965).
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Ford v. Revlon, Inc., (“[W]hen the master’s liability is based solely on the negligence of his servant, a judgment in favor of the servant is a judgment in favor of the master.”).
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Wiper, 152 Ariz. at 312 , 732 P.2d at 203 ; see also Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , Torres v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 15 Ariz.App.
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(company liable for disregarding employee’s purely internal complaints about sexual harassment by supervisor).
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The status of the attorneys’ fee discussion in Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , is somewhat unclear.
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
§ 2000a (1995), as amended, 3 (Title VII), nor does it preclude wrongfully terminated employees from pursuing collateral common law tort claims related to discharge from employment, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , negligent infliction of emotional distress, see Irvin Investors, , interference with contractual relations, see Barrow v. Arizona Bd.
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1) (1965) (emphasis in original)).
Unique Equipment Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. 3 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Unique Equipment Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. 3 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(citing Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , (action against employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress not barred), and Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guar.
Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 984 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1999
Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 984 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1999
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan 918 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan 918 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Schallock 914 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Schallock 914 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , (emphasis in original) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1) (1965)).
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Even if a defendant’s conduct is unjustifiable, it does not necessarily rise to the level of “atrocious” and “beyond all possible bounds of decency” that would cause an average member of the community to believe it was “outrageous.” Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , Lucchesi, 149 Ariz. at 78 , 716 P.2d at 1015 ; , (unjustifiable delay in failing to notify wife of husband’s terminal illness was not outrageous); , (fals
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Thus, whether the action for breach was pleaded in contract, in tort, or both, whether it involved the breach of an express or implied covenant, the action in Sparks and similar cases (see e.g. Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , ) “arises out of a contract.” Id Deutsche’s claim in this case, though clearly one for damages for conversion, likewise depends for its existence on an alleged breach of contract—RSS’s and All Quip’s breach of the security agreement with Deutsche’s assignor, Takeuchi Manufacturing.
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Consequently, the principles set forth in Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , are not applicable here.
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The court stated, ‘We base this on the absence of express language in the Act indicating preemption as well as the decisions in Wagenseller [v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., , ]; Ford [v. Revlon, Inc., , ]; and Bernstein [v. Aetna Life and Casualty, 843 F.2d 359 (9th Cir.1988)].
S.K. Drywall, Inc. v. Developers Financial Group, Inc. 799 P.2d 1362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
S.K. Drywall, Inc. v. Developers Financial Group, Inc. 799 P.2d 1362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sun-land also cites Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , and Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins.
Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court 800 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court 800 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Kuehne next argues that the case of Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , permits her to bring an action against her employer at common law for sexual harassment.
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 783 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1989
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 783 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1989
Ziv v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ziv v. Industrial Commission 773 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
If, indeed, one accepts applicant’s testimony in toto as to what he believes were the causes of his illness and disregards the medical evidence
Continental Insurance v. McDaniel 772 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Continental Insurance v. McDaniel 772 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
for this additional text.
Broomfield v. Lundell 767 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Broomfield v. Lundell 767 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Although the precise question has not been presented, we conclude, after reviewing our supreme court’s decisions in Wagenseller, supra, and Ford v. Revlon, Inc., , that such a claim may be brought and that the Arizona Civil Rights Act with its articulated remedies does not preempt the maintenance of a tort action for wrongful discharge.
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The conduct complained of in this case, even if proven at trial to be true, is not so far outside the bounds of decency as to cause a reasonable person, upon hearing of it, to shout, “Outrageous!” Ford v. Revlon, Inc.