Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dunham v. Pima County, 778 P.2d 1200.

25 citing documents.

Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, (“[T]estimony from a qualified expert that the street design or warnings in question failed to adhere to the [MUTCD’s] requirements is admissible to prove negligence.”).
Villalobos v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Villalobos v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A central issue in this lawsuit is whether the State breached its duty to keep roads “reasonably safe for travel.”
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, Ariz. State Highway Dep’t v. Bechtold, 460 P.2d
Webb v. Omni Block, Inc. 166 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Webb v. Omni Block, Inc. 166 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(helpful testimony that otherwise embraces an ultimate issue is admissible).
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
Isbell Ex Rel. Isbell v. Maricopa County 9 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2000
The County agreed that it had a common law duty to maintain a safe road for all motorized vehicles, , which required the County to act as a reasonably prudent person to secure the safety of those vehicles in the intersection.
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
evidence is offered from which the fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the public agency or jurisdiction should have foreseen a danger to plaintiff from the negligent or inattentive conduct of plaintiff or of another, then the question of the county’s negligence is one for the jury.” *172 , (citation omitted); , (where it appears from the evidence that reasonable people could differ as to whether injury is foreseeable, the question of negligence is one of fact for a jury).
Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Martinez v. State 866 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Martinez v. State 866 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Home Indemnity Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp. 800 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Home Indemnity Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp. 800 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990