Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc., 172 P.3d 410.

32 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Sys., Inc., ¶¶ 34–37 (2007) (explaining that a statute abolishing joint and several liability in strict products liability cases did not violate the anti-abrogation clause because “the claimant remains entirely free to bring his claim against all responsible parties”); Baker, 231 Ariz. at 388 ¶ 35
Amberwood v. Swann's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Amberwood v. Swann's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶ 26, (“[I]ndemnification is not at all inconsistent with apportionment of fault under § 12–2506.”).
Franklin v. Clemett 382 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Franklin v. Clemett 382 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶¶ 35-37, (rejecting argument that A.R.S.
Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano 375 P.3d 69 Ariz. 2016
Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano 375 P.3d 69 Ariz. 2016
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., –25 ¶¶ 8–12, –13 (2007)).
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., –25 ¶¶ 8–12, –13 (2007).
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶ 8
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., quoting Dietz v. Gen.
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶12 Grubb assumes without support that DIB was part of the chain of distribution and concludes it must be liable based on State Farm Insurance Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc., P.3d 410 (2007), P.3d 1232 (App. 2006).
Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶ 32, (quoting Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ).
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Cos. v. 5 Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶ 12, (quoting Dietz v. Gen.
Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sys., Inc., -29, ¶ 32 , -17 (2007).
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., , (under similar comparative fault statutory scheme, factfinder must consider fault of plaintiffs, defendants, and nonparties who had contributed to injury), aff'd
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., (under similar comparative fault statutory scheme, factfinder must consider 16 fault of plaintiffs, defendants, and nonparties who had contributed to injury), aff’d, 217 Ariz. 222
Parra v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. 213 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Parra v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. 213 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., , (comparative fault principles apply to strict liability claim).
Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health Services 209 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health Services 209 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶ 28 , (“[W]e are not free to engraft further exceptions into the law simply because we might favor them as a matter of policy.”).
Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., ¶ 12