Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Juengel, 489 P.2d 869.

32 citing documents.

Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
reliminary questions that must be determined by a fact finder.” Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Servs., Inc., (quoting Diggs v. Ariz. Cardiologists, Ltd., ); see McMurtry, ¶¶ 33-36 (reversing grant of summary judgment based on questions of fact regarding whether decedent’s status had changed to trespasser); (“Plaintiff’s status as trespasser, licensee or invitee was contested and properly treated as a question of fact for the jury’s determination.”); (although the question whether a party assumed a d
Lane v. Gavilan Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lane v. Gavilan Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Plaintiff’s status as trespasser, licensee or invitee was contested and properly treated as a question of fact for the jury’s determination.”), disagreed with on other grounds by New Pueblo Constructors, McMurtry, 231 Ariz. at 256, ¶ 36 (whether hotel guest exceed
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Defendants’ reliance on a third ease, , disagreed with on other grounds by New Pueblo Constructors, , is also misplaced because there we merely held that the assignee of a claim is subject to the defense of contributory negligence of the assignor, not the statute of limitation
Lopez v. Cole 155 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lopez v. Cole 155 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
495, (plaintiff presented expert testimony that trained maintenance crews would have realized danger posed by unstable rock formation that injured plaintiff).
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Fleming, 141 Ariz. at 156 , 685 P.2d at 1308 (county liable under § 12-823 for prejudgment interest in wrongful discharge action); -02 , -76 (1971) (§ 12-823 applicable to contract cases involv *299 ing liquidated damages).
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
*466 The Board also cited New Pueblo Constr., , which has since been vacated by our supreme court, , , in support of its position that attorneys’ fees and costs are not recoverable against the state in cases involving liquidated damages.
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
§ 12-825 does not bar recovery of prejudgment interest against the state); , (taxable costs can be recovered against the state in a tort action because A.R.S.
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
354 , the presence of insurance or workmen’s compensation insurance; Muehlebach v. Mercer Mortuary and Chapel, Inc., , E. L. Jones Construction Company v. Noland, supra; Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., supra ; , Myers v. Rollette, 6 Ariz.App.
Barry v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 542 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Barry v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 542 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
this court followed Hammons v. Waite in holding that the provisions of A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
247 P. 799 (1926); , 230 P. 1112 (1924)
Clarke v. Edging 512 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Clarke v. Edging 512 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
This exception is embodied in § 339 of the Restatement (Second) , , and Giacona v. Tapley, 5 Ariz.App.
Robles v. Severyn 504 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Robles v. Severyn 504 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Restatement of Torts § 343B comment b; see also