14 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hildebrand v. Minyardgreen2 sentences2009Id. ¶ 80 The District fails to identify how or when it presented evidence justifying an assumption of risk instruction under the Hildebrand test. 1972See Hildebrand v. Minyard, 16 Ariz.App. 583 , 494 P.2d 1328 (filed March 23, 1972). | 1 | 2 |
Espinoza v. Schulenburggreen2 sentences2013In Espinoza , our supreme court explained, however, that the assumption of risk doctrine does not provide an appropriate basis for application of the firefighter’s rule. 212 Ariz. at 218, ¶¶ 13-14 , 129 P.3d at 940 . 2013In Espinoza , our supreme court explained, however, that the assumption of risk doctrine does not provide an appropriate basis for application of the firefighter’s rule. 212 Ariz. at 218, ¶¶ 13-14 , 129 P.3d at 940 . | 1 | 1 |
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.green2 sentences2008See ... [SRP v. Westinghouse, 143 Ariz. at 384 , 694 P.2d at 214 ] (suggesting that summary judgment was inappropriate because there was a genuine fact question concerning whether the limitation of liability was actually bargained for). 2008See ... [SRP v. Westinghouse, 143 Ariz. at 384 , 694 P.2d at 214 ] (suggesting that summary judgment was inappropriate because there was a genuine fact question concerning whether the limitation of liability was actually bargained for). | 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 |
City of Tucson v. Hollidaygreen1 sentence1966See The City of Tucson v. Holliday, Ariz.App., 411 P.2d 183 , filed February 17, 1966. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co.green2 sentences1966It would seem, however, that such imposition of the doctrine by judicial fiat is proscribed in this state by the Arizona Constitution, art. 18, § 5, A.R.S.: “The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” In Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 (1962), our Supreme Court embraced the assumption of risk doctrine as a separate defense. 1966It would seem, however, that such imposition of the doctrine by judicial fiat is proscribed in this state by the Arizona Constitution, art. 18, § 5, A.R.S.: “The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” In Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 (1962), our Supreme Court embraced the assumption of risk doctrine as a separate defense. | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. BOSS HOSTEL, INC.green1 sentence1966A case upholding the instruction, but indicating that the trial court should be allowed some discretion in this area, is Terry v. Boss Hotels, Inc., 376 S.W.2d 239, 248 (Mo. 1964). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010We subsequently abrogated Salt River to the extent it suggested that courts may grant summary judgment to a defendant who asserts an assumption of risk defense, see Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403 , 410-11 n. 5, 111 P.3d 1003 , 1010-11 n. 5 (2005), an issue unrelated to the economic loss doctrine. 2 . 2010We subsequently abrogated Salt River to the extent it suggested that courts may grant summary judgment to a defendant who asserts an assumption of risk defense, see Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403 , 410-11 n. 5, 111 P.3d 1003 , 1010-11 n. 5 (2005), an issue unrelated to the economic loss doctrine. 2 . | 2 | 2008–2010 |
McGriff v. McGriff
green
2 sentences1979The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the giving of the assumption of risk instruction, McGriff v. McGriff, 114 Ariz. 323 , 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), establishes that plaintiff, then 19, and defendant Jerry Barney, 15, were deer hunting when Jerry slipped and fell, his rifle discharged, and plaintiff was shot in both ankles. 1979The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the giving of the assumption of risk instruction, McGriff v. McGriff, 114 Ariz. 323 , 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), establishes that plaintiff, then 19, and defendant Jerry Barney, 15, were deer hunting when Jerry slipped and fell, his rifle discharged, and plaintiff was shot in both ankles. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Evans v. Pickett
green
2 sentences1977Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the giving of the assumption of risk instruction, Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967), the following can be said to have occurred. 1977Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the giving of the assumption of risk instruction, Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967), the following can be said to have occurred. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Tucson Utility Supplies, Inc. v. Gallagher
neutral
2 sentences1976Tucson Utility Supplies, Inc v. Gallagher, 102 Ariz. 499 , 433 P.2d 629 (1967). 1976Tucson Utility Supplies, Inc v. Gallagher, 102 Ariz. 499 , 433 P.2d 629 (1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Nichols v. Baker
green
2 sentences1975See Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 5, A.R.S.; Nichols v. Baker, 101 Ariz. 151 , 416 P.2d 584 (1966). 1975See Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 5, A.R.S.; Nichols v. Baker, 101 Ariz. 151 , 416 P.2d 584 (1966). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
green
2 sentences1972Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra; Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 45 Cal.2d 414 , 289 P.2d 226 (1955) ; Hidden v. Malinoff, 174 Cal.App.2d 845 , 345 P.2d 409 (1959). 1972Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra; Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 45 Cal.2d 414 , 289 P.2d 226 (1955) ; Hidden v. Malinoff, 174 Cal.App.2d 845 , 345 P.2d 409 (1959). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
green
2 sentences1972Although one may assume the risk of the negligence of another if he is fully informed of such negligence, Prescott v. Ralph’s Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158 , 265 P.2d 904 (1954), one is not, under the doctrine of assumption of risk, bound to anticipate the negligent conduct of others. 1972Although one may assume the risk of the negligence of another if he is fully informed of such negligence, Prescott v. Ralph’s Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158 , 265 P.2d 904 (1954), one is not, under the doctrine of assumption of risk, bound to anticipate the negligent conduct of others. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Hidden v. Malinoff
green
1 sentence1972Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra; Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 45 Cal.2d 414 , 289 P.2d 226 (1955) ; Hidden v. Malinoff, 174 Cal.App.2d 845 , 345 P.2d 409 (1959). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Buffalo Shook Company v. Barksdale
green
2 sentences1966A case relatively in point, recognizing the assumption of risk defense, but holding that there was insufficient evidence in the particular case to show that the defendant appreciated and accepted the risk in question, is Buffalo Shook Company v. Barksdale, 206 Va. 45 , 141 S.E.2d 738 (1965). 1966A case relatively in point, recognizing the assumption of risk defense, but holding that there was insufficient evidence in the particular case to show that the defendant appreciated and accepted the risk in question, is Buffalo Shook Company v. Barksdale, 206 Va. 45 , 141 S.E.2d 738 (1965). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc.
red
1 sentence1966Justice Greenhill in Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., Tex, 371 S.W.2d 368, 378 , indicates in note 3 to his opinion that the American Law Institute Council unanimously accepted the recommendation that assumption of risk remain in the Restatement, despite the opposition of “The Confederacy,” consisting of Deans Page, Keeton and Wade, Professors James, Malone, Morris, Seavey and Thurman. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.