Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Salladay v. Old Dominion Copper Mining Co., 100 P. 441.

48 citing documents.

Amsden v. Bwcdd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Amsden v. Bwcdd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Salladay v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., see ¶ 9 infra.
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Salladay v. Old Dominion Mining & Smelting Co., P. 441 (1909) (precluding liability of flume owner in attractive nuisance claim); (“[A] fireman has no cause of action against one whose negligence caused the fire in which he was injured.”); see also Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, 178
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
100 P. 441, 441 (1909) (“This is an action to recover damages *291 for injuries causing the death of an infant ...
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bledsoe v. Goodfarb 823 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1991
Bledsoe v. Goodfarb 823 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1991
§ 33-1551 , 100 P. 441 (1909).
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
100 P. 441 (1909), a child died after falling into an open flume.
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 642 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 642 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Partin v. Olney 591 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Partin v. Olney 591 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 578 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1978
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 578 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1978
*499 We must answer only one question on appeal: , 100 P. 441 (1909) and cases following, apply to the negligent construction and maintenance of a bridge over an irrigation canal by an irrigation company?
Elkins v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District 524 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Elkins v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District 524 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In this appeal we must determine if a , 100 P. 441 (1909).
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 523 P.2d 496 Ariz. 1974
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 523 P.2d 496 Ariz. 1974
That system remains today as it did1 many years ago “indispensable for the maintenance of life and prosperity.” , 100 P. 441, 442 (1909).
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
Co., , 100 P. 441 (1909); Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n
Rodriquez v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 506 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Rodriquez v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 506 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
321 , we considered arguments that this state’s prior decisional law should be changed, stating: “It might well be that with the developing concentration of population and the increase of traffic along our public highways, a countervailing public policy has developed which would require that the immunity granted in Salladay [ , 100 P. 441 ] be tempered.
Dombrowski v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 496 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1972
Dombrowski v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 496 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1972
100 P. 441 (1909), *276 this court considered the question at some length: “ * * * It is a matter of common knowledge that alluring and attractive flumes, such as the one in question in this case, carrying running water, are extensively used in this territory, not only by miners in the necessary and proper conduct o
Spur Feeding Company v. Fernandez 472 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1970
Spur Feeding Company v. Fernandez 472 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1970
Co., , 100 P. 441 (1909), where the Territorial Supreme Court held that the decision in Sioux City & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.)
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 458 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
The public policy of this state regarding open conduits for the transportation of water was first set forth in 1909 , 100 P. 441 (1909).
Giacona v. Tapley 428 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Giacona v. Tapley 428 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
for the drowning of a trespassing child, even if that child is too young to appreciate the danger, (citing cases) This reasoning is inconsistent with the Restatement rule, and the cases cited above are disapproved insofar as their language or holdings are contrary to the views expressed herein.” *497 , 100 P. 441 (1909).
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. 297 P.2d 339 Ariz. 1956
Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. 297 P.2d 339 Ariz. 1956
Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 238 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1951
Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 238 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1951
It has been the law in this state since the case of Salladay v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., , 100 P. 441 , decided in 1909, that the turntable doctrine would not be extended to canals especially when the very lifeblood of our economic stability rested upon the irrigation of our arid lands.
Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
Co., , 100 P. 441, 442 , we are of the opinion that the rule in this jurisdiction is, and should continue to be, that an irrigation district is under no legal duty to fence such a canal as the one under consideration.
City of Glendale v. Sutter 95 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1939
City of Glendale v. Sutter 95 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1939
Buckeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren 46 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1935
Buckeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren 46 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1935
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton 8 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1932
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton 8 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1932