Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Webster v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1063.

40 citing documents.

KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶14 Moreover, Restatement § 285 comment c explains that a “court may, and in certain types of cases customarily will, adopt the requirements of the enactment as the standard of conduct necessary to avoid liability for negligence.” (“In the absence of law to the contrary, Arizona follows the Restatement.”).
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
except to neither willfully nor intentionally inflict an injury.” (trespasser generally may not recover unless landowner “has been guilty of some willful or wanton disregard for the plaintiff’s safety”); Nicoletti, 131 Ariz. at 142 (defining a trespasser as a “person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without a privilege to do so created by the
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. 438 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. 438 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Because our research has not revealed any Arizona authority explaining the meaning of “final judgment on the merits” in this kind of proceeding, we “look to the Restatement and other jurisdictions for guidance.” Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Mfg., ¶ 16 (App. 2003); (explaining that Arizona courts may follow the Restatement when the result produces a “sound and fair policy”).
Seronde v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Seronde v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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
Homeowners Ass’n, and generally will embrace the Restatement if it prescribes “a sound and sensible rule,”
Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 224 P.3d 178 Ariz. 2010
In Re: Gila River System Ariz. 2010
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 224 P.3d 178 Ariz. 2010
(issue not raised and argued in opening brief is waived).
In Re: Gila River System Ariz. 2010
(issue not raised and argued in opening brief is waived).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
also subject to liability for any additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid which the other’s injury reasonably requires, irrespective of whether such acts are done in a proper or a negligent manner.” “Absent law to the contrary, we look to the Restatement for guidance.” Barrett, 207 Ariz. at 379, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d at 959
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System 173 P.3d 440 Ariz. 2007
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System 173 P.3d 440 Ariz. 2007
(issue not raised in opening brief is waived).
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
to denote the fact that the actor has information from which a person of reasonable intelligence or [o]f the superior intelligence of the actor would infer that the fact in question exists, or that such person would govern his conduct upon the assumption that such fact exists.’” quoting Restatement of Torts § 12(1) (1934).
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Hunnicutt Construction, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496 928 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hunnicutt Construction, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496 928 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Barnes v. Outlaw 937 P.2d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Barnes v. Outlaw 937 P.2d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd. 916 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd. 916 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corrections
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc., , Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , , (even if
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The Browns argue that the judgment should in any event be reversed because the Arizona Supreme Court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 337 (1965) , after the trial court’s judgment.
Zuck v. State 764 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Zuck v. State 764 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988