Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morrell v. City of Phoenix, 147 P. 732.

34 citing documents.

Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(distinguishing “carelessness” from “willful and corrupt misconduct”); Vinson v. O’Malley, (“misconduct” required for removal from office “must be willful and corrupt”); -14 & 513 (1915) (recognizing distinction in city charter between negligence, for which city was immune, and “gross negligence or willful misconduct,” for which city was liable).
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
For instance, we found that a city charter immunizing the City of Phoenix from certain tort liability did not violate the anti-abrogation clause, stating the clause “only undertakes to preserve rights already cognizable by law, and does not undertake to create new rights of action.” Id.
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
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
168, 172 , (employer has a duty to “ ‘furnish [an] employee a reasonably safe place in which to work and reasonably safe instrumentalities with which to do his work’”) ( , 147 P. 732, 734 (1915)).
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
ted 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the right to recover damages for injuries to all actions existing under the common law); , 147 P. 732, 735 (1915) (superseded by statute) (finding that the anti-abrogation provision preserves those “rights already cognizable by law, and does not undertake to create new rights of action”).
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
147 P. 732, 735 (1915) (city charter provision immunizing city from liability for negligence did not violate art. 18, § 6 because when Constitution was adopted, city charter was already in effect and thus no right to sue the city was cognizable at law).
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
147 P. 732 (1915); , 225 P. 1115 (1924).
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Alabam’s -44 , 242 P. 658, 665-66 (1926) (emphasis supplied); , 300 P. 958, 959 (1931) (holding that the “former common-law action for negligence [is] a constitutional one, and that it cannot be abrogated by the legislature”); , 147 P. 732, 735 (1915) (Ross, J., holding that Article 18, § 6 applied only to rights “cognizable by law” at the time the constitution was adopted; Franklin, J. concurred).
Smith v. Goodman 430 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Smith v. Goodman 430 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In order for the plaintiff to recover he must show that the defendant-employer was negligent in the employer’s duty to the employee: “It was the duty of the city to furnish the plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work and reasonably safe instrumentalities with which to do his work.” , 147 P. 732, 734 (1915).
Smith v. Superior Equipment Co. 428 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1967
Smith v. Superior Equipment Co. 428 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1967
City of Phoenix v. Williams 361 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1961
City of Phoenix v. Williams 361 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1961
A charter provision, similar in effect to the ordinance now under consideration, , 147 P. 732, 735 .
Industrial Commission v. Navajo County 167 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1946
Industrial Commission v. Navajo County 167 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1946
239 P. 1030 ; , 147 P. 732 .
Dagg v. Hammons 272 P. 643 Ariz. 1928
Dagg v. Hammons 272 P. 643 Ariz. 1928
Commercial Credit Co. v. Phoenix Hudson-Essex, Inc. 262 P. 1 Ariz. 1927
Commercial Credit Co. v. Phoenix Hudson-Essex, Inc. 262 P. 1 Ariz. 1927
Sumid v. City of Prescott 230 P. 1103 Ariz. 1924
Sumid v. City of Prescott 230 P. 1103 Ariz. 1924
The appellee, however, , 147 Pac.
Schultz v. City of Phoenix 156 P. 75 Ariz. 1916
Schultz v. City of Phoenix 156 P. 75 Ariz. 1916