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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1962–1973 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 |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. BOSS HOSTEL, INC.green2 sentences1969In Holliday , we quoted with approval from Terry v. Boss Hotels, Inc., 376 S.W.2d 239, 248 (Mo.1964): “ ‘The circumstance in which reliance on the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk will be approved are exceptional.’ ” 3 Ariz.App. at 18, 411 P.2d at 191 . 1966The Missouri Supreme Court said in this case: “The circumstance in which reliance on the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk will be approved are exceptional.” 376 S.W.2d 239, 248 (1964). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1969As in Holliday , we distinguish the fact situation here from cases like Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 (1962), by reason of the lesser apparency of the risk. 1969As in Holliday , we distinguish the fact situation here from cases like Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 (1962), by reason of the lesser apparency of the risk. | 2 | 1968–1969 |
Lunsford v. Tucson Aviation Corp.
green
2 sentences1968Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 ; Lunsford v. Tucson Aviation Corp., 73 Ariz. 277 , 240 P.2d 545 , 73 A.L.R.2d 358 n, 382 n. 1968Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 ; Lunsford v. Tucson Aviation Corp., 73 Ariz. 277 , 240 P.2d 545 , 73 A.L.R.2d 358 n, 382 n. | 2 | 1962–1968 |
Bryant v. Thunderbird Academy
green
2 sentences1973In Bryant v. Thunderbird Academy, 103 Ariz. 247 , 439 P.2d 818 (1968), our Supreme Court discussed the matter of assumption of risk and stated: “To invoke the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk, it is essential that the risk or danger shall have been known to and appreciated by plaintiff or that it shall have been so obvious that it must be taken to have been known or comprehended.” 103 Ariz. at 249 , 439 P.2d at 820 . 1973In Bryant v. Thunderbird Academy, 103 Ariz. 247 , 439 P.2d 818 (1968), our Supreme Court discussed the matter of assumption of risk and stated: “To invoke the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk, it is essential that the risk or danger shall have been known to and appreciated by plaintiff or that it shall have been so obvious that it must be taken to have been known or comprehended.” 103 Ariz. at 249 , 439 P.2d at 820 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
City of Tucson v. Holliday
green
1 sentence1969In Holliday , we quoted with approval from Terry v. Boss Hotels, Inc., 376 S.W.2d 239, 248 (Mo.1964): “ ‘The circumstance in which reliance on the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk will be approved are exceptional.’ ” 3 Ariz.App. at 18, 411 P.2d at 191 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.