10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Badia v. City of Casa Grandegreen1 sentence2026To establish a gross negligence claim, the plaintiff “essentially must show wanton misconduct that is flagrant and evinces a lawless and destructive spirit.” Badia v. City of Casa Grande, 195 Ariz. 349, 356, ¶ 27 (App. 1999) (citation modified). ¶39 In granting summary judgment on Erma’s wrongful death claim against Cervantes based on negligence, the superior court held the claim precluded by our supreme court’s decision in Ryan v. Napier, 245 Ariz. 54 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Copper Hills Enterprises, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence2025See Copper Hills Enters., Ltd. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 214 Ariz. 386, 391, ¶ 15 (App. 2007) (recognizing that law of the case doctrine only precludes trial court from reaching issues that appellate court decided expressly or by necessary implication). | 1 | 1 |
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2022Walls involved an appeal from the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the plaintiff’s gross negligence claim. 170 Ariz. at 592, 596 . | 1 | 1 |
Sherman v. First American Title Insurancegreen1 sentence2020Co., 201 Ariz. 564, 567, ¶ 6 (App. 2002). ¶13 The gross negligence claim, for which Camelot argues Genaro’s owes a duty based on this same contractual relationship, also fails as futile. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrechtgreen2 sentences2015McGill v. Albrecht, 203 Ariz. 525 , 530-31 ¶ 20, 57 P.3d 384, 389-90 (2002) (declining to read a gross-negligence standard of care into a statute where legislature created that standard in other statutes but did not in the statute at issue). 2015McGill v. Albrecht, 203 Ariz. 525 , 530-31 ¶ 20, 57 P.3d 384, 389-90 (2002) (declining to read a gross-negligence standard of care into a statute where legislature created that standard in other statutes but did not in the statute at issue). | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences1996Id. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 392 , 381 P.2d 107, 112 (1963)). "[T]he right to sue the state is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception." Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 431 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1182 (1990). 1996Id. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 392 , 381 P.2d 107, 112 (1963)). "[T]he right to sue the state is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception." Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 431 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1182 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Pritchard v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Id. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 392 , 381 P.2d 107, 112 (1963)). "[T]he right to sue the state is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception." Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 431 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1182 (1990). 1996Id. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 392 , 381 P.2d 107, 112 (1963)). "[T]he right to sue the state is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception." Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 431 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1182 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Eria v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.green1 sentence1991On this same issue, the court in Eria v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 377 F.Supp. 344, 345 (E.D.N.Y.1974), stated as follows: “While it is true that leave to amend a pleading is usually freely given, ... if the amended pleading could be defeated by a motion for summary judgment, [the court’s] grantpng] [of] leave to amend would be a futile gesture.” Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walls’ leave to amend his complaint. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
L.W. v. Dee Grubbs Thomas Nelson Marlin Hutton Richard Hill
green
2 sentences2003Grubbs II, 92 F.3d at 897 . ¶23 Two years after the Ninth Circuit’s Grubbs II decision, the Supreme Court reviewed another Ninth Circuit decision in an analogous area of § 1983 liability. 2003The court stated: While Neely can be distinguished on its facts from the present case, its language . . . is either incorrect to the extent that it approves the gross negligence standard, or it must be limited to the claims of inmate plaintiffs injured because of a miscarriage of the “professional judgment of a government hospital official” in the context of a captive plaintiff. 16 Grubbs II, 92 F.3d at 897 . ¶23 Two years after the Ninth Circuit’s Grubbs II decision, the Supreme Court reviewed another Ninth Circuit decision in an analogous area of § 1983 liability. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2003Sacramento, 523 U.S. 833 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ryan v. State
red
2 sentences1996Id. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 392 , 381 P.2d 107, 112 (1963)). "[T]he right to sue the state is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception." Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 431 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1182 (1990). 1996Id. at 309 , 656 P.2d at 598 (citing Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 392 , 381 P.2d 107, 112 (1963)). "[T]he right to sue the state is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception." Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 431 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1182 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company
green
2 sentences1970As authority for the gross negligence instruction the appellant cites the case of Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company, 79 Ariz. 253 , 286 P.2d 761 (1955). 1970As authority for the gross negligence instruction the appellant cites the case of Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company, 79 Ariz. 253 , 286 P.2d 761 (1955). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.