Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., 751 P.2d 509.

70 citing documents.

Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Co., –99 (1988) (Feldman, V.C.J., dissenting))).
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶23 In Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., -18 (1986), our supreme court held that the anti-abrogation clause “extends to wrongs recognized at common law, but it is not limited to those elements and concepts of particular actions which were defined in our pre-statehood case law.” Two years later, however, in Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., a split supreme court held that A.R.S.
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co., -97 , -13 (1988)); , 531 ¶ 8, (“[A] statute must be rationally related to furthering a legitimate governmental interest.”); , (If the legislative reasoning is related to
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Co., see also Standhardt v. Superior Court, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶35
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Criticized Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Co., , (Feldman, V.C.J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority for ignoring a case on point from Oklahoma “constru[ing] the parent constitutional *5 clause” of our own anti-abrogation provision)
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Co. , , , (legislature not required to forego measure “simply because it may be somewhat imprecise”).
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co., , overruled on other grounds, , American Fed’n of Labor v. American S. & D. Co.
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Overruled Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
861 * we overruled Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., , and dispensed with the narrow analysis there enunciated, that article 18, § 6 did not protect a right of action for injuries occurring at a time subsequent to expiration of the twelve-year statute of repose following the sale of a defective product.
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Clouse v. STATE, DPS 984 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Co., , (Feldman, V.C.J., dissenting)).
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Our comments in Hazine were addressed to the situation the court faced in Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Our comments in Hazine were addressed to the situation the court faced in Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co.
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Co., , (Feldman, J., dissenting), overruled in Hazine; a statute abolishing or barring a cause of action before it reasonably could be brought, Barrio; , or a statute purportedly limiting damages in a well-established cause of action (e.g., d
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ward v. State 890 P.2d 1144 Ariz. 1995
Ward v. State 890 P.2d 1144 Ariz. 1995
With respect to the ruling on constitutionality, the court of appeals relied, in part, on Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co.
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., Inc., , *474 (1988) ; Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Co., , the trial court held § 12-551 constitutional and dismissed plaintiff’s strict product liability claim.
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
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 18, § 5 Westinghouse finally contends, citing Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., Inc., , that the assumption of risk instructions given in this case did not constitute fundamental error because article 18, § 5 does not apply to a product liability action.
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salgado v. Kirschner 836 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Salgado v. Kirschner 836 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961)