Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alhambra School District v. Superior Court, 796 P.2d 470.

52 citing documents.

KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Superior Court, (recognizing a person can owe both a statutory and common law duty of care).2 Thus, at this stage of the litigation, Kaufman is not precluded from relying on both § 28-3475 and Restatement § 390 in pursuing a negligent entrustment claim.
Pusd 210 v. Hon. sinclair/lucero Ariz. 2025
Pusd 210 v. Hon. sinclair/lucero Ariz. 2025
v. Superior Court, (concluding that a school district assumed a duty of reasonable care for operating a marked crosswalk it established); see also Warrington v. Tempe Elementary Sch.
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
v. Superior Court, (“[A] duty of care may also be created by statute.”).
Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Gann v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gann v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Diannah Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2021
Diannah Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2021
v. Superior Court, –43 (1990) (holding that a school owed statutory and common law duties to all persons using marked crosswalk that it voluntarily established).
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
v. Superior Court, (“The relationship that gives rise to a duty of care may also be created by statute.”).
Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger 394 P.3d 1083 Ariz. 2017
Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger 394 P.3d 1083 Ariz. 2017
v. Superior Court, (“Duty refers to the relationship between individuals; it imposes a legal obligation on one party for the benefit of the other party.”) (citation omitted).
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 354 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 354 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Superi- or Court, -43 , , 47A-75 (1990) (school district assumed duty of care to persons using crosswalk it established and could be hable for personal injury caused by deviation from statutory requirements); -11 , -11 (1983) (dram shop statutes as basis for tavern
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Superior Court, -42 , -74 (1990) (holding school district owed duty to high school student injured in elementary school-created crosswalk); Collette v. Tolleson Unified Sch.
Monroe v. Basis School, Inc. 318 P.3d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Monroe v. Basis School, Inc. 318 P.3d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
For instance, P.2d 470 (1990), our supreme court considered a school district’s affirmative duty to persons using a school crosswalk.
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
v. Superior Court, , (finding school district owed duty to foreseeable user of marked crosswalk); Roger v. Superior Coach Sales & Serv.
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. Superior Court (Nichols), , (duty requires the exercise of care for protection against unreasonable risks of harm).
Sabina v. Yavapai County Flood Control District 993 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Sabina v. Yavapai County Flood Control District 993 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See, , Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass’n, , Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357 , 706 P.2d at 369 (“The test for whether conduct is negligent is whether there is a foreseeable risk of injury from the conduct.”)
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
(school district owed duty to foreseeable user of marked crosswalk); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., , (“One element of duty is foreseeability.”).
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell 909 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1995
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell 909 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1995
v. Superior Court, , 40 n. 3, , 472 n. 3 (1990).
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
v. Maricopa County Superior Court
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
v. Superior Court, , 40 & n. 3, , 472 & n. 3 (1990).
Polacke v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Polacke v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
v. Superior Court, , 40 n. 3, , 472 n. 3 (1990).
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
v. Superior Court, , 40 n. 3, , 472 n. 3 (1990).