7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1968–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
Currie v. Sechristgreen2 sentences1992The reasoning behind the rule is based on risk allocation. “[S]ince the employer has no right of control over *391 the manner in which the work is to be done, it is to be regarded as the contractor’s own enterprise, and he, rather than the employer, is the proper party to be charged with the responsibility of preventing the risk, and administering and distributing it.” Currie v. Sechrist, 119 Ariz. 466, 469 , 581 P.2d 700, 703 (App.1978) (quoting Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts § 71 (4th ed. 1971)). 3 However, numerous exceptions to the general rule of non-liability exist which, if applic 1992The reasoning behind the rule is based on risk allocation. “[S]ince the employer has no right of control over *391 the manner in which the work is to be done, it is to be regarded as the contractor’s own enterprise, and he, rather than the employer, is the proper party to be charged with the responsibility of preventing the risk, and administering and distributing it.” Currie v. Sechrist, 119 Ariz. 466, 469 , 581 P.2d 700, 703 (App.1978) (quoting Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts § 71 (4th ed. 1971)). 3 However, numerous exceptions to the general rule of non-liability exist which, if applic | 1 | 1 |
Anchor Concrete Co. v. Victor Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Medford v. Peterson, 76 Or.App. 99 , 708 P.2d 623 (1985); Anchor Concrete Co. v. Victor Sav. & Loan, 664 P.2d 396 *585 (Okla.1983); Post Bros. v. Yoder, 20 Cal.3d 1 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 569 P.2d 133 (1977). 2 The reasoning behind the rule varies from state to state. | 1 | 1 |
Medford School Dist. v. PETERSON & JONESgreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Medford v. Peterson, 76 Or.App. 99 , 708 P.2d 623 (1985); Anchor Concrete Co. v. Victor Sav. & Loan, 664 P.2d 396 *585 (Okla.1983); Post Bros. v. Yoder, 20 Cal.3d 1 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 569 P.2d 133 (1977). 2 The reasoning behind the rule varies from state to state. | 1 | 1 |
Medford School District No. 549C ex rel. North Coast Electric Co. v. Peterson & Jones Commercial Construction Inc.green1 sentence1989See, e.g., Medford v. Peterson, 76 Or.App. 99 , 708 P.2d 623 (1985); Anchor Concrete Co. v. Victor Sav. & Loan, 664 P.2d 396 *585 (Okla.1983); Post Bros. v. Yoder, 20 Cal.3d 1 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 569 P.2d 133 (1977). 2 The reasoning behind the rule varies from state to state. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pearsongreen2 sentences1983“Any other rule might require that an appellate court set aside a jury’s verdict and the judgment based on it without establishing for certain whether the incident did or did not occur * * State v. Pearson, 98 Ariz. 133, 137 , 402 P.2d 557, 560 (1965). 1983“Any other rule might require that an appellate court set aside a jury’s verdict and the judgment based on it without establishing for certain whether the incident did or did not occur * * State v. Pearson, 98 Ariz. 133, 137 , 402 P.2d 557, 560 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
Butane Corporation v. Kirbygreen2 sentences1972The reasoning behind this rule was first espoused by the Arizona Supreme Court in Butane Corporation v. Kirby, 66 Ariz. 272 , 187 P.2d 325, 331 (1947), wherein the Court stated: “An instruction not based upon the evidence in the case is misleading and calculated to induce the jury to suppose that such a state of facts, in the opinion of the court, is possible and may be considered by them.” In the instant litigation, this principle must be applied to the issue of plaintiffs’ contributory negligence. 1972The reasoning behind this rule was first espoused by the Arizona Supreme Court in Butane Corporation v. Kirby, 66 Ariz. 272 , 187 P.2d 325, 331 (1947), wherein the Court stated: “An instruction not based upon the evidence in the case is misleading and calculated to induce the jury to suppose that such a state of facts, in the opinion of the court, is possible and may be considered by them.” In the instant litigation, this principle must be applied to the issue of plaintiffs’ contributory negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Snakard v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences1968See Snakard v. McLaughlin (Old.), 351 P.2d 1013 ; Walter H. 1968See Snakard v. McLaughlin (Okl.), 351 P.2d 1013 ; Walter H. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Post Bros. Construction Co. v. Yoder
green
2 sentences1989See, e.g., Medford v. Peterson, 76 Or.App. 99 , 708 P.2d 623 (1985); Anchor Concrete Co. v. Victor Sav. & Loan, 664 P.2d 396 *585 (Okla.1983); Post Bros. v. Yoder, 20 Cal.3d 1 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 569 P.2d 133 (1977). 2 The reasoning behind the rule varies from state to state. 1989See, e.g., Medford v. Peterson, 76 Or.App. 99 , 708 P.2d 623 (1985); Anchor Concrete Co. v. Victor Sav. & Loan, 664 P.2d 396 *585 (Okla.1983); Post Bros. v. Yoder, 20 Cal.3d 1 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 569 P.2d 133 (1977). 2 The reasoning behind the rule varies from state to state. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Lauderdale v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1984Lauderdale v. Industrial Commission, 60 Ariz. 443 , 139 P.2d 449 (1943). 1984Lauderdale v. Industrial Commission, 60 Ariz. 443 , 139 P.2d 449 (1943). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co.
green
2 sentences1978The reasoning behind the rule is well stated in Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 , 43 S.Ct. 83 , 67 L.Ed. 237 (1922). “. . . 1978The reasoning behind the rule is well stated in Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 , 43 S.Ct. 83 , 67 L.Ed. 237 (1922). “. . . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.