Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Benton v. Regeser, 179 P. 966.

35 citing documents.

ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We begin with the first Arizona case to introduce the doctrine, , 179 P. 966 (1919).
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
GHER & KENNEDY P A Phoenix By C. Lincoln Combs Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Association for Justice and Arizona Trial Lawyers Association ________________________________________________________________ P E L A N D E R, Justice ¶1 We adopted the family purpose doctrine nearly a P. 966 (1919).
Young v. Beck 231 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Young v. Beck 231 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Country Mutual Insurance v. Hartley 65 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Country Mutual Insurance v. Hartley 65 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
a family vehicle 4 used for certain purposes: “[T]he head of a family who maintains a motor vehicle for the use, pleasure and convenience of that family is liable for the negligence of a member of the family who has the general authority to drive it while the vehicle is used for family purposes.” , , 179 P. 966, 968 (1919) (adopting family purpose doctrine in Arizona).
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
For example, , 179 P. 966 (1919), the phrase “action to recover damages for injuries sustained” was used to describe an action for damages sustained in a car accident.
Jacobson v. Superior Court 743 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Jacobson v. Superior Court 743 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona adopted the family purpose doctrine in 1919, , 179 P. 966 (1919), clearly noting the agency rationale for the doctrine.
Brown v. Stogsdill 682 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Brown v. Stogsdill 682 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
179 P. 966 (1919); 60A C.J.S.
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
The husband’s , 179 P. 966 (1919), and therefore the case would appear inapplicable.
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Plaintiff’s , 179 P. 966 (1919), the doctrine is applicable to corporate owners.
Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Against the foregoing factual background, plaintiff seeks to hold the mother and father liable under the family purpose doctrine, , 179 P. 966 (1919).
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Mortensen v. Knight 305 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1956
Mortensen v. Knight 305 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1956
This contention invokes the family purpose doctrine long established as the law of this state, , 179 P. 966 .
Anderson v. Alabam Freight Lines 169 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1946
Anderson v. Alabam Freight Lines 169 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1946
287 P. 440 ; Benton v. Regeser, supra [ , 179 P. 966 ] ; , ; , , 150 A.L.R.
Musgrave v. Karis 163 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1945
Musgrave v. Karis 163 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1945
Southwestern Freight Lines, Ltd. v. Floyd 119 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1941
Southwestern Freight Lines, Ltd. v. Floyd 119 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1941
Donn v. Kunz 79 P.2d 965 Ariz. 1938
Donn v. Kunz 79 P.2d 965 Ariz. 1938
This rule is stated by Justice BAKER, , 179 Pac.
Pickwick Stages Corp. v. Williams 287 P. 440 Ariz. 1930
Pickwick Stages Corp. v. Williams 287 P. 440 Ariz. 1930
Price & Price Investment Co. v. McGrath 222 P. 714 Ariz. 1924
Price & Price Investment Co. v. McGrath 222 P. 714 Ariz. 1924