Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231.

80 citing documents.

Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Fund Manager & Adm’r, 160 Ariz. 150, 157, (“Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read 5 ¶¶ 25-26, (finding parts of preamble to AEPA unconstitutional).
Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. 189 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. 189 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-38, ¶¶ 25-32 , -38 (1999) (“Courts do make law.”); cf. Collier v. O’Neil, -23 , -25 (1945) (“Courts do not make law.
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 9 , Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem.
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
Banner Health v. Medical Savings Insurance 163 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(potential for conflicting interpretations by trial judges militates in favor of accepting special action jurisdiction); In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton, , (same).
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
In addition to Arizona's strong constitutional protections of the right to bring common-law tort claims and to receive full compensation for any damages, , 538-41 ¶¶ 33-51, -41 (1999) (discussing "anti-abrogation" clause, Art. XVIII, § 6, and "non-limitation" clause, Art. II, § 31); Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (holding that Article XVIII, § 6 "protects the right to recover damages for injury to reputa
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶12 When a statute “does not abrogate any viable ‘right of action to recover damages,’ it does not violate article 18, § 6.” Ramirez, 972 P.2d at 667- 68; (“We have held that article 18, § 6 precludes abrogation, but not regulation.”); Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (“We long ago held that our constitution permits regulations effectively reducing a plaintiff’s recovery.”); cf. Little v. All
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(finding preamble to Employment Protection Act, which purported to invalidate supreme court’s , “devoid of operative effect” because “it manifested] the legislature’s intent to usurp judicial a
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
¶¶ 34, 39, (anti-abrogation clause is not implicated where the right “originates exclusively within the statute” and “cannot trace its antecedents to a common law right of action”).
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 17 , (holding that employees asserting wrongful termination claims against their employers for violating the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) were limited under the AEPA to the ACRA’s statutory remedies).
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
It protects from legislative repeal or revocation those tort actions that “either existed at common law or evolved from rights recognized at common law.” ¶ 39 , see also Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (observing that the anti-abrogation provision extends the right to recover damages for injuries to all actions existing under the common law)
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The EPA “limit[s] plaintiffs to three avenues of relief for claims asserted against employers on the theory of wrongful discharge,” one of which is when “the discharge violated a statute of this state.”
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. 2 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. 2 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(§ 23-1501(3)(b)(i) constitutionally limits the remedies available for wrongful terminations in violation of the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S.