Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 794 P.2d 138.

38 citing documents.

Ibrahim v. Mkts llc/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ibrahim v. Mkts llc/special Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (citing cases).
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Aow v. Scythian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aow v. Scythian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Newspapers, Inc., ("The court may grant summary judgment only if no dispute exists as to any material facts, if only one inference can be drawn from those facts, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); ¶ 26 (App. 2020) (finding the superior court
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 434 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. 434 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC 381 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC 381 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Newspapers, Inc., (“The court may grant summary judgment only if no dispute exists as to any material facts, if only one inference can be drawn from those facts, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Newspapers, Inc., -09, -42 (1990) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency (“Restatement (Second)”) § 220 (1958)).
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cf. Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (explaining factors to consider in determining whether a newspaper delivery person is an employee or independent contractor).
Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
See Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“And, ‘[e]ven when the facts are undisputed, summary disposition is unwarranted if different inferences may be drawn from those facts.’” quoting Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (alteration in Mitchell).
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶10 We recognize many of the factors that suggest an independent contractor rather than master-servant relationship between Safeway and Howard are also present in this case.3 See Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
The respondent judge concluded they were not after examining “the totality of the circumstances,” including the undisputed facts that UAPD was Pimber’s primary employer and that Pimber had “had no contract with” and owed “no legal duty to TPD.” She conducted that analysis pursuant to Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., P.2d 138 (1990).
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See also Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., -09 , -42 (1990) (whether a master-servant relationship exists is an objective determination to be made by the trier of fact).
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And, “[e]ven when the facts are undisputed, summary disposition is unwarranted if different inferences may be drawn from those facts.” Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 12 Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , supports our conclusion.
Southeast Arizona Medical Center v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Samc v. Ahcccs 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Samc v. Ahcccs 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Southeast Arizona Medical Center v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 935 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
While the AHCCCS standard contract provides that the contractor is independent, the language of a contract is not controlling in determining the existence of an agency relationship; rather, we look to “the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.” , (quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, , ).
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Citing the above-quoted language from Anton , the supreme court in Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , rejected the employer’s argument that the language of the employment contract determined whether the plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor, concluding that the contract language did not determine the relationship of the parties.
Avila v. Northrup King Co. 880 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994