Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Fahringer, 795 P.2d 819.

32 citing documents.

Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
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
at 394-95, ¶¶ 24-25, 46 P.3d at 405-06 (Legislature may not negate Article 18, § 5 by decreeing that “a negligent actor whose conduct was a cause of injury was the sole cause of the injurious event”); -02, -22 (1990) (statute may not provide that “antecedent conduct” of person injured is absolute bar to recovery of damages from person otherwise liable for the injury under either statutory or common law principles); -25, -92 (1990) (same); S
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§§ 12-820 to -823 (2003 and Supp. 2014),3 which “codified various common law doctrines that conferred absolute and qualified immunity on various public entities and employees” and “permitted governmental entities and their employees to raise affirmative defenses in actions sounding in tort,” -01, -21 (1990).
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
government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception.” (“The Act ‘reaffirmed the now well settled common law notion that governmental immunity is the exception and liability the rule.’”) ( n.4, n.4 (1990)).
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(citing Stone v. Ariz. Highway Comm’n, , overruled in pari by Grimm v. Ariz. Bd.
Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§§ 12-820 to -826 (2005) (Actions Against Public Entities or Public Employees Act)
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at ah times, be left to the jury.” In construing this provision, our supreme court has repeatedly held that a statute may not provide that “the antecedent conduct of a person injured is an absolute bar to the recovery of damages from one *278 otherwise liable for the injury under either statutory or common law principles.” -02 , -22 (1990); see also Schwab, 164 Ariz. at 424-25, 793 P.2d at 1091-92 ; cf. Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., , (issue of ex
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(finding unconstitutional under Art. 18 § 5 statute that posed “an absolute bar to recovery of damages by a particular category of persons who could otherwise proceed with an action for damages.”).
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Co., , , 603 n. 9, , 823 n. 9 (1990).
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
“The Act codified various common law doctrines that conferred absolute and qualified immunity on various public entities and employees.”
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
( , ); Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm’n
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
600 n. 4, , 820 n. 4 (1990) (in Act's prefatory statement, legislature reaffirmed common law notion that governmental immunity is the exception and liability the rule).
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
James L. *134 Conlogue, Note, A Separation of Powers Analysis of the Absolute Immunity of Public Entities, 28 Ariz.L.Rev.
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
600 n. 4, , 820 n. 4 (1990).
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
For a discussion of the legislative history of this act, , 795 P.2d, 819, 820 (1990), and Note, A Separation of Powers Analysis of the Absolute Immunity of Public Entities, 28 Ariz.L.Rev.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by