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.
9 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'ngreen2 sentences2017Thus, he argues SHC was acting on its obligations as a healthcare provider, not as his employer. ¶26 Although Arizona courts have discussed the dual capacity doctrine, no reported Arizona case has applied it, and indeed, in Hills v. Salt River Project Assoc., 144 Ariz. 421, 425 , 698 P.2d 216, 220 (App. 1985), this court stated the doctrine was inconsistent with the exclusivity provision of the Act and came close to rejecting it. 2017Thus, he argues SHC was acting on its obligations as a healthcare provider, not as his employer. ¶26 Although Arizona courts have discussed the dual capacity doctrine, no reported Arizona case has applied it, and indeed, in Hills v. Salt River Project Assoc., 144 Ariz. 421, 425 , 698 P.2d 216, 220 (App. 1985), this court stated the doctrine was inconsistent with the exclusivity provision of the Act and came close to rejecting it. | 5 | 6 |
Denman v. Duval Sierrita Corporationgreen2 sentences1994See Denman v. Duval Sierrita Corp., 27 Ariz. App. 684, 685 , 558 P.2d 712, 713 (1976) (dual capacity argument is contrary to the public policy behind workers' compensation; employee could not sue his self-insured employer in the latter's capacity as an insurance carrier); see also Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n, 144 Ariz. 421, 425 , 698 P.2d 216, 220 (App. 1985) (dual capacity doctrine conflicts with statute mandating exclusivity of workers' compensation remedy and with legislative purpose). 1994See Denman v. Duval Sierrita Corp., 27 Ariz. App. 684, 685 , 558 P.2d 712, 713 (1976) (dual capacity argument is contrary to the public policy behind workers' compensation; employee could not sue his self-insured employer in the latter's capacity as an insurance carrier); see also Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n, 144 Ariz. 421, 425 , 698 P.2d 216, 220 (App. 1985) (dual capacity doctrine conflicts with statute mandating exclusivity of workers' compensation remedy and with legislative purpose). | 2 | 3 |
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co.green2 sentences2017Even assuming, however, that the doctrine has some viability in Arizona, the doctrine does not apply here. ¶27 Under the dual capacity doctrine, an employer can be subject to a tort claim only if the employer “possess a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes it as a separate legal person.” Dugan, 185 Ariz. at 101 , 912 P.2d at 1330 . 2017Even assuming, however, that the doctrine has some viability in Arizona, the doctrine does not apply here. ¶27 Under the dual capacity doctrine, an employer can be subject to a tort claim only if the employer “possess a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes it as a separate legal person.” Dugan, 185 Ariz. at 101 , 912 P.2d at 1330 . | 1 | 2 |
Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP.green2 sentences2017See also Delbridge, 182 Ariz. at 53, 893 P.2d at 53 (collecting cases; dual capacity doctrine conflicts with public policy and is contrary to the exclusivity provision). 2017See also Delbridge, 182 Ariz. at 53, 893 P.2d at 53 (collecting cases; dual capacity doctrine conflicts with public policy and is contrary to the exclusivity provision). | 1 | 1 |
Robbins v. Seekampgreen2 sentences1985See Robbins v. Seekamp, 122 N.H. 318 , 444 A.2d 537, 539 (1982). 1985See Robbins v. Seekamp, 122 N.H. 318 , 444 A.2d 537, 539 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Swichtenberg v. Brimer
green
2 sentences1997See, e.g., Dugan; Swichtenberg v. Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77 , 828 P.2d 1218 (App. 1991); Hills . 7 . 1997See, e.g., Dugan; Swichtenberg v. Brimer, 171 Ariz. 77 , 828 P.2d 1218 (App. 1991); Hills . 7 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Anderson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
green
2 sentences1991Anderson v. Industrial Comm’n of Ariz., 147 Ariz. 456 , 711 P.2d 595 (1985). 4 This surrender, however, occurs only within limits that the dual capacity doctrine serves to define. 1991Anderson v. Industrial Comm’n of Ariz., 147 Ariz. 456 , 711 P.2d 595 (1985). 4 This surrender, however, occurs only within limits that the dual capacity doctrine serves to define. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Duprey v. Shane
green
2 sentences1991Larson, pp. 14-229. 1 One of the earliest cases to play prominently in the development of the dual capacity doctrine was Duprey v. Shane, 39 Cal.2d 781 , 249 P.2d 8 (1952). 1991Larson, pp. 14-229. 1 One of the earliest cases to play prominently in the development of the dual capacity doctrine was Duprey v. Shane, 39 Cal.2d 781 , 249 P.2d 8 (1952). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Freese v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
green
2 sentences1991In 1982, the doctrine was abolished by the California legislature. 2 In 1983, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to apply the doctrine in Freese v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 5 , 445 N.E.2d 1110 . 1991In 1982, the doctrine was abolished by the California legislature. 2 In 1983, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to apply the doctrine in Freese v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 5 , 445 N.E.2d 1110 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Purdy
green
1 sentence1985As the court stated in State v. Purdy, 601 P.2d 258 (Alaska 1979): There are endless imaginable situations in which an employer might owe duties to the general public, or to non-employees, the breach of which would be asserted to avoid the exclusive liability provision of our statute. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.