Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Seisinger v. Siebelgreen2 sentences2025See Seisinger, 220 Ariz. at 94 ¶ 32; § 12-563. 2024See, e.g., Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 , 94 ¶ 33, 95 ¶ 39 (2009) (“Arizona courts have long held that the standard of care normally must be established by expert medical testimony.”); Duncan, 205 Ariz. at 310 ¶ 13 (“[T]he precise parameters of the required disclosure for any particular informed consent case [are] to be established by expert testimony in accordance with the applicable standard of care.” (cleaned up) (quoting Hales v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 305 , 311 n.4 (1978))); Riedisser, 111 Ariz. at 544–45 (explaining that “the custom of the medical profession to warn must be established | 6 | 6 |
Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLCgreen2 sentences2023Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121, 128, ¶ 14 (App. 2008) (reasoning that the abuse of discretion standard should apply to the superior court’s decision whether expert testimony is required under A.R.S. § 12-2602, the companion statute to A.R.S. § 12-2603, because the determination at trial of areas of expert testimony is discretionary). ¶6 The Franciscos argue that A.R.S. § 12-2603 only applies to medical malpractice claims and that, because a lack of informed consent claim is not a medical malpractice claim, expert testimony is not required. 2018Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121, 128, ¶ 14 (App. 2008). ¶10 A medical malpractice claim requires proof of a breach of the applicable standard of care and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. | 2 | 2 |
Kenyon v. Hammergreen2 sentences2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 | 1 | 3 |
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd.green2 sentences2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 | 1 | 2 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen1 sentence2025The intensity of this belief—the degree to which a factfinder is convinced that a given act actually occurred—can, of course, vary.” (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring))). ¶31 Thus, § 12-563 codifies some prima facie elements of a medical malpractice claim. | 1 | 1 |
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicappedgreen1 sentence2018See Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass’n for the Retarded & Handicapped, 150 Ariz. 50, 58 (App. 1986) (explaining that Lake Havasu is not a “licensed health care provider”). | 1 | 1 |
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburngreen2 sentences2018Citing Cornerstone, 231 Ariz. at 74, ¶ 21 , she argues that "any APSA claim that is based on medical malpractice (including the one here) is a medical malpractice claim." ¶23 We held in Cornerstone, 231 Ariz. at 69, ¶ 1 , that when a plaintiff seeks relief under APSA based on medical negligence, the plaintiff must comply with the expert-witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2604 (2018). 2018Citing Cornerstone, 231 Ariz. at 74, ¶ 21 , she argues that "any APSA claim that is based on medical malpractice (including the one here) is a medical malpractice claim." ¶23 We held in Cornerstone, 231 Ariz. at 69, ¶ 1 , that when a plaintiff seeks relief under APSA based on medical negligence, the plaintiff must comply with the expert-witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2604 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. City of Mesagreen2 sentences2015Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355-56, ¶ 7 , 284 P.3d 863, 866-67 (2012). 2015Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355-56, ¶ 7 , 284 P.3d 863, 866-67 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd.green2 sentences2014See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43 , 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 149 Ariz. 76, 80 , 716 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1986) (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258 , 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1980) (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim). ¶17 We disagree with the superior court’s conclusion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Banner “inescapab 2014See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43 , 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 149 Ariz. 76, 80 , 716 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1986) (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258 , 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1980) (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim). ¶17 We disagree with the superior court’s conclusion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Banner “inescapab | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Homegreen2 sentences2014See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43 , 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 149 Ariz. 76, 80 , 716 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1986) (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258 , 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1980) (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim). ¶17 We disagree with the superior court’s conclusion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Banner “inescapab 2014See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43 , 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 149 Ariz. 76, 80 , 716 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1986) (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258 , 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1980) (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim). ¶17 We disagree with the superior court’s conclusion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Banner “inescapab | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Revlon, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43 , 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 149 Ariz. 76, 80 , 716 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1986) (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258 , 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1980) (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim). ¶17 We disagree with the superior court’s conclusion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Banner “inescapab 2014See Ford, 153 Ariz. at 43 , 734 P.2d at 585 (analyzing jury verdict against defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd., 149 Ariz. 76, 80 , 716 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1986) (reversing grant of summary judgment on intentional infliction claim); Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258 , 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1980) (affirming directed verdict against plaintiff on intentional infliction claim). ¶17 We disagree with the superior court’s conclusion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Banner “inescapab | 1 | 1 |
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 | 1 | 1 |
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co.green2 sentences2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 | 1 | 1 |
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co.green2 sentences2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 2005Imaging Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 308, ¶ 1 , 70 P.3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona’s Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003)); Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 342-44 , 861 P.2d 625, 627-29 (1993) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to product liability claim); Boswell, 152 Ariz. at 12-20 , 730 P.2d at 189-97 (1986) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to invalidate a statute limiting damages for certain defamation claims); Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101, 104-07 , 692 P.2d 28 | 1 | 1 |
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294, 298 , 890 P.2d 69, 73 (App.1994); Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., 166 Ariz. 183, 185 , 800 P.2d 1291, 1293 (App. 1990); see also Salt River Project Agric. 2005See Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294, 298 , 890 P.2d 69, 73 (App.1994); Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., 166 Ariz. 183, 185 , 800 P.2d 1291, 1293 (App. 1990); see also Salt River Project Agric. | 1 | 1 |
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294, 298 , 890 P.2d 69, 73 (App.1994); Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., 166 Ariz. 183, 185 , 800 P.2d 1291, 1293 (App. 1990); see also Salt River Project Agric. 2005See Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294, 298 , 890 P.2d 69, 73 (App.1994); Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., 166 Ariz. 183, 185 , 800 P.2d 1291, 1293 (App. 1990); see also Salt River Project Agric. | 1 | 1 |
Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitalsgreen2 sentences1992Traynor of the California Supreme Court said, in connection with a medical malpractice claim, that "[t]he arbitration provision in such contracts is a reasonable restriction, for it does no more than specify a forum for the settlement of disputes." And, in Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 17 Cal.3d 699 , 131 Cal. Rptr. 882, 890 , 552 P.2d 1178, 1186 (1976), the California Supreme Court outlined "the benefits of the arbitral forum": [t]he speed and economy of arbitration, in contrast to the expense and delay of jury trial, could prove helpful to all parties; the simplified procedures and 1992Traynor of the California Supreme Court said, in connection with a medical malpractice claim, that "[t]he arbitration provision in such contracts is a reasonable restriction, for it does no more than specify a forum for the settlement of disputes." And, in Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 17 Cal.3d 699 , 131 Cal. Rptr. 882, 890 , 552 P.2d 1178, 1186 (1976), the California Supreme Court outlined "the benefits of the arbitral forum": [t]he speed and economy of arbitration, in contrast to the expense and delay of jury trial, could prove helpful to all parties; the simplified procedures and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spring v. Bradford
green
2 sentences2017Spring, on the other hand, argues that, based on Rule 615’s plain language, “it is not the witness who must be essential,” rather it is “his or her presence (or reading of prior testimony).” Therefore, according to Spring, “the essential nature of any witness (expert or lay) is irrelevant under Rule 615(c).” ¶32 The trial court seemingly agreed with Bradford’s interpretation of Rule 615(c), noting “that had [Bradford’s] counsel sought permission, the court likely would have allowed both sides’ experts to review or observe trial testimony.” Spring, 241 Ariz. at 459 ¶ 12. 2017Spring, on the other hand, argues that, based on Rule 615’s plain language, “it is not the witness who must be essential,” rather it is “his or her presence (or reading of prior testimony).” Therefore, according to Spring, “the essential nature of any witness (expert or lay) is irrelevant under Rule 615(c).” ¶32 The trial court seemingly agreed with Bradford’s interpretation of Rule 615(c), noting “that had [Bradford’s] counsel sought permission, the court likely would have allowed both sides’ experts to review or observe trial testimony.” Spring, 241 Ariz. at 459 ¶ 12. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Mealey v. Arndt
green
1 sentence2025Substantial evidence is “any relevant evidence from which a reasonable mind might draw a conclusion.” Mealey v. Arndt, 206 Ariz. 218 , 221 ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (citation omitted). ¶13 To succeed on a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) “‘[t]he health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning expected of a reasonable, prudent health care provider in the profession or class to which he belongs within the state acting in the same or similar circumstances,’ and (2) ‘[s]uch failure was a proximate cause of the injury.’” Sampson v. Surgery Ctr. of Pe | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Riedisser v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2024See, e.g., Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 , 94 ¶ 33, 95 ¶ 39 (2009) (“Arizona courts have long held that the standard of care normally must be established by expert medical testimony.”); Duncan, 205 Ariz. at 310 ¶ 13 (“[T]he precise parameters of the required disclosure for any particular informed consent case [are] to be established by expert testimony in accordance with the applicable standard of care.” (cleaned up) (quoting Hales v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 305 , 311 n.4 (1978))); Riedisser, 111 Ariz. at 544–45 (explaining that “the custom of the medical profession to warn must be established | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hales v. Pittman
green
1 sentence2024See, e.g., Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 , 94 ¶ 33, 95 ¶ 39 (2009) (“Arizona courts have long held that the standard of care normally must be established by expert medical testimony.”); Duncan, 205 Ariz. at 310 ¶ 13 (“[T]he precise parameters of the required disclosure for any particular informed consent case [are] to be established by expert testimony in accordance with the applicable standard of care.” (cleaned up) (quoting Hales v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 305 , 311 n.4 (1978))); Riedisser, 111 Ariz. at 544–45 (explaining that “the custom of the medical profession to warn must be established | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Equihua v. Carondelet Health Network
green
1 sentence2020Equihua v. Carondelet Health Network, 235 Ariz. 504, 509 , ¶¶ 19–20 (App. 2014) (citing Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2018Put differently, under Ensign's argument, with the sole exception of a medical malpractice claim, the parties agreed to arbitrate any claim . . . arising out of the provision of services by the Facility, the admission agreement, the validity, interpretation, construction, performance and enforcement thereof, or which alleges violations of the Adult Protective Services Act, A.R.S. §46-455, et.seq., [sic] or which seeks an award of punitive damages or attorney's fees. ¶14 Stith cites IB Property Holdings L.L.C. v. Rancho Del Mar, 228 Ariz. 61 (App. 2011), and DGG & CAR, Inc., for the well-establ | 1 | 2018–2018 |
St. George v. Plimpton
green
1 sentence2017George v. Plimpton, 241 Ariz. 163 (App. 2016), the court affirmed summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim for failure to establish expert qualifications. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gorney v. Meaney
green
2 sentences2011We agree that the purpose of the affidavit is to curb frivolous medical malpractice suits, see Gor-ney, 214 Ariz. at 229 , 150 P.3d at 802 ; however, nothing in A.R.S. § 12-2603 indicates that the legislature intended to protect plaintiffs from challenges by defendants based on positions taken in the affidavit that conflict with positions plaintiffs may pursue later in the litigation. ¶ 32 Although Tana was required by statute to submit the preliminary affidavits before engaging in discovery, we do not believe this means she is not accountable for the substance of the statements set forth in t 2011We agree that the purpose of the affidavit is to curb frivolous medical malpractice suits, see Gor-ney, 214 Ariz. at 229 , 150 P.3d at 802 ; however, nothing in A.R.S. § 12-2603 indicates that the legislature intended to protect plaintiffs from challenges by defendants based on positions taken in the affidavit that conflict with positions plaintiffs may pursue later in the litigation. ¶ 32 Although Tana was required by statute to submit the preliminary affidavits before engaging in discovery, we do not believe this means she is not accountable for the substance of the statements set forth in t | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Estate of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht
green
2 sentences2008Id. at ¶ 4, 57 P.3d 384 . *610 The trial court dismissed the APSA claim, finding that it was based solely on the medical malpractice claim. 2008Id. ¶ 15 The supreme court granted review to determine whether a victim of elder abuse could maintain a damage action pursuant to both APSA and MMA. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.