Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp., 774 P.2d 213.

38 citing documents.

Sanders v. Springfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sanders v. Springfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶22 “A child’s claim for loss of consortium is derivative of the parent’s claim for personal injuries.” Villareal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
relationships are available for the child.” Villareal v. State, Dep’t of Transp., –82 (1989).
Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This right has been extended to husbands, id., wives, parents, and children, Villareal v. State, Dep’t of Transp.
Alvarado v. Atiemo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alvarado v. Atiemo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Atiemo argues that if Alvarado's claim is time-barred, Jacob's claim likewise must be barred.
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
April Abigail Guerra v. State of Arizona 348 P.3d 423 Ariz. 2015
April Abigail Guerra v. State of Arizona 348 P.3d 423 Ariz. 2015
See Villareal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (“Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires that the plaintiff witness an injury to a closely related person, suffer mental anguish that manifests itself as a physical injury, and be within the zone of danger so as to be subject to an unreasonable risk of bodily harm created b
Estate of Desela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 249 P.3d 767 Ariz. 2011
Estate of Desela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 249 P.3d 767 Ariz. 2011
(recognizing child’s cause of action for loss of consortium with parent and noting that double recovery can be avoided by jury instructions and special verdicts).
Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Villareal v. State Dep’t of Transp., , ( , ).
Kaufman v. Langhofer 222 P.3d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kaufman v. Langhofer 222 P.3d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Barnes, 192 Ariz. at 286 , 964 P.2d at 487 (spouses); Villareal v. State Dep’t of Transp., , (parents); , (children).
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶14 The legislative intent of the statute, to protect children’s “interests,” P.2d 213 (1989), is borne out by the language mandating that sexual offenders who commit crimes against children be sentenced pursuant to the dangerous crimes against children sentencing scheme, which provides more severe penalties.
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
“[Ajlthough we generally follow the Restatement absent statutes or cases to the contrary, we will not do so blindly.” , , (recognizing child’s consortium claim despite Restatement rule that does not); infra ¶24 (reflecting Arizona’s rejection of the Restatement view limiting respondeat superior liability for punitive damages).
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
(quoting Villareal v. State Dep’t of Transp., , ) (alteration in original).
Barnes v. Outlaw 964 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1998
Barnes v. Outlaw 964 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1998
Finally, we recognized a child’s claim for the loss of consortium of a parent in Villareal v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp.
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
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
See Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp., , (court overruled prior case on the basis of its lack of merit, with no separate discussion of the doctrine of stare decisis).
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
See Villareal v. State Dep’t of Transp.
Olvera v. Superior Court 815 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Olvera v. Superior Court 815 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The case of Villareal v. State Dep’t of Transport., , involved a lawsuit for parental consortium because of serious injury to their father.
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
She concedes that that claim *391 is now precluded by the holding in Villareal v. State, Department of Transportation
Pierce v. Casas Adobes Baptist Church 782 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
Pierce v. Casas Adobes Baptist Church 782 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
Recently, in Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp., , this Court extended the loss of consortium cause of action to include a child’s claim for loss of a parent’s consortium when the parent suffered overwhelming and severe injuries that destroyed or nearly destroyed the parent-child relationship.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by