Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pritchard v. State, 788 P.2d 1178.

106 citing documents.

Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. 2026
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 6 (2007) (same); (same).
Kp Ventures v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Kp Ventures v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
–31 (1990) (addressing the predecessor to § 12-821.01(A)).
Wallschlaeger v. the Hogle Firm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wallschlaeger v. the Hogle Firm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶21 Arizona courts treat the notice of claim statute as “analogous to a statute of limitations.”
brooks/phoenix v. Hon. Agne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
brooks/phoenix v. Hon. Agne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
But “this procedural requirement is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.”
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tappan v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Tappan v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Like the statute of limitations, the notice of claim requirement is “subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling.” (holding the time element with respect to filing a notice of claim is a procedural requirement subject to estoppel).
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Burns v. City of Tucson 432 P.3d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Burns v. City of Tucson 432 P.3d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 14 Arguing from Arizona's general rule that a plaintiff can pursue common-law damages against governmental entities, see Pritchard v. State , , 431, , 1182 (1990), Burns insists that nothing in the relocation-assistance statutes "clearly and unambiguously demonstrates the legislature intended to divest the superior court of general jurisdiction to hear Burns'[s] negligence claim against the City."
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller 429 P.3d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller 429 P.3d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Martineau v. Maricopa County , , ¶ 10, (quoting Pritchard v. State , , 432, ).
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding that late notice of claim was subject to equitable tolling, waiver and estoppel); Pueblo Santa Fe Townhomes Owners’ Assoc.
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
3 Accordingly, in Arizona, “the right to sue the [S]tate is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the 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, 795 P.2d
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Although CDR was not required to plead compliance with the notice of claim statute, 432 , 1183 (1990), CDR was required to respond in some fashion once the City raised the defense.
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
432 , 1183 (1990); ¶¶ 10, 13 , (logic of Pritchard applies “equally to the current version of the statute”; jury question as to whether claimant complied with statute).
Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 5 The supreme court expressly declined to decide, however, whether resolution of this factual issue was one for the trial court as a disputed issue of fact not going to the merits of the case, see Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , or was reserved for the jury, , as an affirmative defense.
Little v. State 240 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Little v. State 240 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
estoppel and equitable tolling.’ ”
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(holding that the time element with respect to filing a notice of claim is a procedural requirement “subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling”).
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Laws, ch. 285, § 1(A); (“[I]t is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for judgment—seven months after the action began—in favor of all three Joneses in the amount of $500 each.
Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
Compare Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , (noting that the trial court may resolve ''jurisdictional issues, including those which involve disputed issues of fact” which do not go to the merits of the case), *239 433 , (concluding that compliance with former version of the notice of claims statute was procedural and not jurisdictional).
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006