DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sharp, 189 P. 631.

51 citing documents.

  • Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
  • Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
    In overturning the doctrine, was “[t]he first case in Arizona” to hold a sovereign immune from tort liability and did so “[w]ithout examining any real basis or reason for sustaining the doctrine” beyond its historical use.
  • Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    3 n. 3, ¶ 9, , 46 n. 3 (2003) ( , ( , 189 P. 631, 632 (1920), for the proposition that "it is well settled by the great weight of authority that the state, in consequence of its sovereignty, is immune from prosecution in the courts and from liability to respond in damages for negligence, except in those cases where it has expressly waived immunity
  • City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
  • City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
    189 P. 631, 631 (1920) (adopting common law rule).
  • 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
    ( , 189 P. 631, 632 (1920), for the proposition that "it is well settled by the great weight of authority that the state, in consequence of its sovereignty, is immune from prosecution in the courts and from liability to respond in damages for negligence, except in those cases where it has expressly waived immunity
  • Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
  • Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
    5 As all parties agree, at the time Arizona adopted its constitution, “the state, in consequence of its sovereignty, [was] immune from prosecution in the courts and from liability to respond in damages for negligence, except in those cases where it [had] expressly waived immunity or assumed liability by constitutional or legislative enactment.” , 189 P. 631, 633 (1920).
  • Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
  • Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
    4 As all parties agree, at the time Arizona adopted its constitution, “the state, in consequence of its sovereignty, [was] immune from prosecution in the courts and from liability to respond’ in damages for negligence, except in those cases where it [had] expressly waived immunity or assumed liability by constitutional or legislative enactment.” , 189 P. 631, 633 (1920).
  • 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
    189 P. 631 (1920), overruled in part by Stone, , (right of action against the state not recognized in the common law when Arizona Constitution adopted).
  • Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    “It is well settled by the great weight of authority that the state, in consequence of its sovereignty, is immune from prosecution in the courts and from liability to respond in damages for negligence, except in cases where it has expressly waived immunity or assumed liability by Constitutional or legislative enactment.” , 189 P. 631 (1920).
  • Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
  • Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Stone 452 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    However, the right to bring suit against the state and the liability of the state are two distinct things : “Immunity from an action is one thing; immunity from liability is another; hence the state does not waive its immunity from liability for the negligence of its agents, servants or employes by a statute conferring jurisdiction only upon the court.” , 189 P. 631, 632 (1920).
  • Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission 381 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1963
  • Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission 381 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1963
    189 P. 631 (1920); 81 C.J.S.
  • Sawaya v. Tucson High School District No. 1 281 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1955
  • City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
  • City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
    In this jurisdiction, , 189 P. 631 , the law is well settled that the state is vested with immunity from liability for acts of negligence by its agents arising out of purely governmental activities.
  • Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
  • Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
    The state, , 189 P. 631 ; , 202 P. 237 ; school districts, School Dist.
  • Maricopa County v. Douglas 208 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1949
  • Maricopa County v. Douglas 208 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1949
    Counsel for appellees cites Los Angeles County v. Hurlbut, 44 Cal.App.2d 88 , ; , 189 P. 631 , as authority for the reverse of the above statement.
  • Ruth v. Rhodes 185 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1947
  • Ruth v. Rhodes 185 P.2d 304 Ariz. 1947
    189 P. 631 ; Hartford Accident & , ; , ; , 225 P. 1115 , where this court announced the principle that neither the state, nor any political subdivision thereof, was liable fo
  • Industrial Commission v. Navajo County 167 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1946
  • Industrial Commission v. Navajo County 167 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1946
    Under common law and statutes which governed the territory of Arizona, and under the provisions of the constitution and statutes of the State of Arizona prior to 1925, persons performing services for the State of Arizona or its subdivisions when injured while in the performance of a governmental function had no cause of action against the state, , 189 P. 631 ; , 202 P. 237 ; Hartford Accident & , ; 10 Pacific Digest, Counties, >142, p. 345; , 225 P. 1115 ; of against its municipalities fo
  • Grande v. Casson 72 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1937
  • Grande v. Casson 72 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1937
    We have held in the case *409 , 189 Pac.
  • State of Arizona v. Miser 72 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1937
  • State of Arizona v. Miser 72 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1937
    the state, and prosecute the same to final judgment.” It will be observed that the right to sue the state is given those having claims against it on contract or for negligence that have been disalloioed, and while the language of this section merely provides a remedy to enforce a liability existing under general law and does not create a cause of action where none existed before, , 189 Pac.
  • Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Wainscott 19 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1933
  • Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Wainscott 19 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1933
  • School District No. 48 v. Rivera 243 P. 609 Ariz. 1926
  • School District No. 48 v. Rivera 243 P. 609 Ariz. 1926
  • Jones v. City of Phoenix 239 P. 1030 Ariz. 1925
  • Jones v. City of Phoenix 239 P. 1030 Ariz. 1925
  • Larsen v. County of Yuma 225 P. 1115 Ariz. 1924
  • Larsen v. County of Yuma 225 P. 1115 Ariz. 1924
  • Fairfield v. Huntington 205 P. 814 Ariz. 1922
  • Fairfield v. Huntington 205 P. 814 Ariz. 1922
    ht of authority, a state, in consequence of its sovereignty, cannot be made to respond in damages'for the negligence of its agents, servants, or employees which occurs in the discharge of a governmental function, except in those cases 'where it has, by constitutional or legislative enactment, expressly assumed such liability, and this court, speaking through Justice BAKER, , 189 Pac.
  • State v. Dart 202 P. 237 Ariz. 1921