6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ruelas v. Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc.green1 sentence2021Servs., Inc., 199 Ariz. 344, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 2001). ¶10 The Restatement (Third) of Agency provides a non- exhaustive list of factors that can be used by the courts to guide the right- of-control determination: the extent of control that an employer may exercise over the details of an employee’s work and the timing of the work; the relationship between the employee’s work and the nature of Crane notes, Appellants did not raise a claim under A.R.S. § 23-1022, and Marco Crane did not raise the statute in its motion for summary judgment to allege it is entitled to immunity from Appellants’ suit. | 1 | 1 |
Strait v. Straitgreen1 sentence2021Strait v. Strait, 223 Ariz. 500, 502, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2003The supreme court has approved the following non-exhaustive list of factors devised by leading commentator Dean Wade: "(1) [t]he usefulness and desirability of the product, (2) the availability of other and safer products to meet the same need, is) the likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness, (4) the obviousness of the danger, (5) common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products), (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings), and (7) the ability to eliminate the dange 2003The supreme court has approved the following non-exhaustive list of factors devised by leading commentator Dean Wade: "(1) [t]he usefulness and desirability of the product, (2) the availability of other and safer products to meet the same need, is) the likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness, (4) the obviousness of the danger, (5) common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products), (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings), and (7) the ability to eliminate the dange | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. ¶13 The juvenile court did not explicitly state each Michael J. factor, but made supportive findings. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003The supreme court has approved the following non-exhaustive list of factors devised by leading commentator Dean Wade: "(1) [t]he usefulness and desirability of the product, (2) the availability of other and safer products to meet the same need, is) the likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness, (4) the obviousness of the danger, (5) common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products), (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings), and (7) the ability to eliminate the dange 2003The supreme court has approved the following non-exhaustive list of factors devised by leading commentator Dean Wade: "(1) [t]he usefulness and desirability of the product, (2) the availability of other and safer products to meet the same need, is) the likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness, (4) the obviousness of the danger, (5) common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products), (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings), and (7) the ability to eliminate the dange | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.