10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasugreen1 sentence2021See Tostado, 220 Ariz. at 202 ¶ 28 (applying Restatement § 328E); Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 234 Ariz. 569 , 570–71 ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc.green1 sentence2021See Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc., 151 Ariz. 506 , 512 n.4 (App. 1986) ("The fundamental requisites of a partnership . . . [include] community of power in administration."); Tafoya v. Trisler, 8 Ariz. App. 250, 253 (1968) 6 POWERS STEEL v. VINTON STEEL, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Tafoya v. Trislergreen1 sentence2021See Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc., 151 Ariz. 506 , 512 n.4 (App. 1986) ("The fundamental requisites of a partnership . . . [include] community of power in administration."); Tafoya v. Trisler, 8 Ariz. App. 250, 253 (1968) 6 POWERS STEEL v. VINTON STEEL, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Strait v. Hale Construction Co.green2 sentences1996See Strait, 103 Cal.Rptr. at 492 (“The losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost of doing business.”); see also Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 , 837 P.2d 348, 364 (1992); Note, Borrowed Servants and the Theory of Enterprise Liability, 76 Yale L.J. 807 (1967). 1996See Strait, 103 Cal. Rptr. at 492 ("The losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer's enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost of doing business."); see also Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 , 837 P.2d 348, 364 (1992); Note, Borrowed Servants and the Theory of Enterprise Liability, 76 Yale L.J. 807 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Bright v. Cargill, Inc.green2 sentences1996See Strait, 103 Cal.Rptr. at 492 (“The losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost of doing business.”); see also Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 , 837 P.2d 348, 364 (1992); Note, Borrowed Servants and the Theory of Enterprise Liability, 76 Yale L.J. 807 (1967). 1996See Strait, 103 Cal.Rptr. at 492 (“The losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost of doing business.”); see also Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 , 837 P.2d 348, 364 (1992); Note, Borrowed Servants and the Theory of Enterprise Liability, 76 Yale L.J. 807 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
Byars v. Arizona Public Service Companygreen2 sentences1988The need for flexibility in applying the exclusive control test has been recognized by this court in Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company, 24 Ariz.App. 420, 426 , 539 P.2d 534, 540 (1975), where we stated: It is true that the exclusive control test is not one to be strictly or rigidly applied. 1988The need for flexibility in applying the exclusive control test has been recognized by this court in Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company, 24 Ariz.App. 420, 426 , 539 P.2d 534, 540 (1975), where we stated: It is true that the exclusive control test is not one to be strictly or rigidly applied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Danial v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶9 To start, we reject J-King’s argument that the ALJ made factual errors in applying § 23-902 and the control test. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. City of Kingman
green
1 sentence2021Opinion of the Court same effect).; State v. City of Kingman, 217 Ariz. 485 , 488 ¶ 9 (App. 2008) (holding that “when a city exercises actual control over [a state] roadway, it may assume joint liability [with the state] for a failure to keep a roadway safe even absent the existence of an [intergovernmental agreement]”) (emphasis added). ¶17 The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328E(a), which has been adopted by Arizona, also uses an actual control standard. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021See Tostado, 220 Ariz. at 202 ¶ 28 (applying Restatement § 328E); Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 234 Ariz. 569 , 570–71 ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (same). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts
green
2 sentences1991An agency has control over the documents when they “have come into the agency’s possession in the legitimate con *542 duct of its official duties.” Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 145 , 109 S.Ct. at 2848 . 1991An agency has control over the documents when they “have come into the agency’s possession in the legitimate con *542 duct of its official duties.” Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 145 , 109 S.Ct. at 2848 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Barcott v. State, Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
green
2 sentences1975Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 39 Cal.2d 436 , 247 P.2d 344 (1952). 1975Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 39 Cal.2d 436 , 247 P.2d 344 (1952). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences1970Defendant’s next assertion is that even though the arrest may have been lawful, the search was unreasonable in that it extended to areas beyond the defendant’s control in violation of the principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). 1970Defendant’s next assertion is that even though the arrest may have been lawful, the search was unreasonable in that it extended to areas beyond the defendant’s control in violation of the principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey
green
2 sentences1968Eisenbeiss v. Payne, 42 Ariz. 262 , 25 P.2d 162 (1933); Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey, 83 Ariz. 163 , 317 P.2d 1094 (1957). 1968Eisenbeiss v. Payne, 42 Ariz. 262 , 25 P.2d 162 (1933); Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey, 83 Ariz. 163 , 317 P.2d 1094 (1957). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Eisenbeiss v. Payne
green
2 sentences1968Eisenbeiss v. Payne, 42 Ariz. 262 , 25 P.2d 162 (1933); Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey, 83 Ariz. 163 , 317 P.2d 1094 (1957). 1968Eisenbeiss v. Payne, 42 Ariz. 262 , 25 P.2d 162 (1933); Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey, 83 Ariz. 163 , 317 P.2d 1094 (1957). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.