Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 861 P.2d 625.

73 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
that “a regulation that limits the theories of liability under which a plaintiff may sue is nonetheless an abrogation when 8 ROBIN ROEBUCK v. MAYO CLINIC, ET AL. Opinion of the Court the ‘alternative’ theory of recovery protects different interests.” Duncan, 205 Ariz. at 313 ¶ 31; disapproved of on other grounds by Torres
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
See, (recognizing strict liability and negligence as causes of action to recover damages); (requiring damages to sustain negligence claim); (requiring damages as element in attorney-malpractice claim).
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Although contradictory dicta can be found in a few of this Court’s cases—namely, Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., –18 (1986) –44 (1993)—this Court has never extended the anti-abrogation clause to rights of action not recognized at statehood, and we will not do so now.
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
covered by art. 18, § 6.” (citing Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 17-18).
Szeto v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Szeto v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(quoting Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp.
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Instead, “[t]he evolution of common law causes of action — whether in duty, standard of care, or damages — falls within the broad coverage of art. 18, § 6.”
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
§§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); -44 , -29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp.
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
It may not, under the guise of ‘regulation,’ so affect the fundamental right to sue for damages as to effectively deprive the claimant of the ability to bring the action.” Barrio, 143 Ariz. at 106, 692 P.2d -16- at 285
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Co., , (Feldman, V.C.J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority for ignoring a case on point from Oklahoma “constru[ing] the parent constitutional *5 clause” of our own anti-abrogation provision)
West v. State 58 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
West v. State 58 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
she claims such a result would be unconscionable.
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-44 , -29 (1993) (constitution protects rights of action that existed at statehood or judicially evolved thereafter).
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co., , overruled on other grounds, , American Fed’n of Labor v. American S. & D. Co.
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Overruled Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
861 * we overruled Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., , and dispensed with the narrow analysis there enunciated, that article 18, § 6 did not protect a right of action for injuries occurring at a time subsequent to expiration of the twelve-year
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
Plaintiffs argue that, , their negligence claim is protected by the anti-abrogation clause, even though this claim did not exist until Ryan recognized it.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Plaintiff asserts that the dichotomy between legislative “regulation” and "abrogation,” discussed extensively in cases that have analyzed article 18, § 6 of the constitution, “is neither required nor helpful here.” See, e.g., Jimenez
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Our supreme court has stated that that section “is broad, unambiguous, and protects ‘the right of action to recover damages for injuries.’ ” , quoting Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6.
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Schoenrock; , (Martone, J., dissenting); , 266 n. 1, , 670 n. 1 (1994) (Article 18, § 6 “preserves the common-law right to recover damages”).
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996