Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc., 825 P.2d 5.

41 citing documents.

GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
Riebe Enters., Inc., (“Under Rule 23[(m)(2)], Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, this court has the authority either to decide these issues [raised in but not addressed by the court of appeals] or to remand to the court of appeals for decision.”).
Nava-Cruz v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Nava-Cruz v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Watson v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Watson v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ronnie McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Ariz. 2022
Ronnie McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Ariz. 2022
Riebe Enters., Inc., (deciding issues not addressed by the court of appeals “[i]n the interest of judicial economy”); n.2 (1990) (noting that “[p]rinciples of judicial economy” supported deciding an issue that had been briefed and argued).
Ephraim Dabush v. Seacret Direct LLC 478 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2021
Ephraim Dabush v. Seacret Direct LLC 478 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2021
Thus, for example, his reliance on Lewis v. NJ Riebe Enter., Inc., is misplaced.
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Riebe Enters., Inc. , , 388-89, , 9-10 (1992).
Gonzalez v. Mat Const Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Mat Const Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Riebe Enters., Inc., (emphasis omitted).
Lexon v. Valley Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lexon v. Valley Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Riebe Enterprises, Inc., P.2d 5 (1992), our supreme court rejected the presumption stated in Welker and other cases that “without retained control, a general contractor owes absolutely no duty of care to employees of subcontractors.” Lewis, 170 Ariz. at 389, 825 P.2d at 10.
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Riebe Enters., Inc., , ), there was no recognized duty of a general contractor to an employee of a subcontractor.
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu 204 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu 204 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Riebe Enter., Inc. , ); see also Siddons v. Bus.
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Riebe Enters., Inc., , , (“Thus, Arizona allows unlimited recovery for actual damages, expenses for past and prospective medical care, past and prospective pain and suffering, lost earnings, and diminished earning capacity.”).
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Riebe Enter., Inc., , (citations omitted).
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Riebe Enter., Inc., 170 *
Sarmiento v. Stubblefield's Custom Concrete, Inc. 874 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sarmiento v. Stubblefield's Custom Concrete, Inc. 874 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Vega v. Griffiths Construction, Inc. 833 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Vega v. Griffiths Construction, Inc. 833 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992