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 2012–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobiancogreen2 sentences2025For example, in Wilks v. Manobianco, an insurance agent argued that a statute had abrogated a common-law negligence claim for failure to procure the policy requested by the insured. 237 Ariz. 443, ¶ 1 (2015). 2025For that same reason, this case conceptually differs from Wilks, where the statute did not abrogate the common-law negligence claim against the insurance agent. 237 Ariz. 443, ¶¶ 13-14 . | 1 | 1 |
Glaze v. Larsengreen2 sentences2012Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26 , 29 ¶ 15, 83 P.3d 26, 29 (2004). 2012Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26 , 29 ¶ 15, 83 P.3d 26, 29 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty.green2 sentences2012See Summerfield, 144 Ariz. at 472 , 698 P.2d at 717 ; Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Ctr., 169 Ariz. 399, 400 , 819 P.2d 985, 986 (App.1991). ¶ 9 Damages are an indispensable element of a common-law negligence claim. 2012See Summerfield, 144 Ariz. at 472 , 698 P.2d at 717 ; Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Ctr., 169 Ariz. 399, 400 , 819 P.2d 985, 986 (App.1991). ¶ 9 Damages are an indispensable element of a common-law negligence claim. | 1 | 1 |
Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Centergreen2 sentences2012See Summerfield, 144 Ariz. at 472 , 698 P.2d at 717 ; Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Ctr., 169 Ariz. 399, 400 , 819 P.2d 985, 986 (App.1991). ¶ 9 Damages are an indispensable element of a common-law negligence claim. 2012See Summerfield, 144 Ariz. at 472 , 698 P.2d at 717 ; Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Ctr., 169 Ariz. 399, 400 , 819 P.2d 985, 986 (App.1991). ¶ 9 Damages are an indispensable element of a common-law negligence claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona
green
1 sentence2017In Andrews, the plaintiff was injured by falling in a store and brought a common-law negligence claim against the store. 160 Ariz. at 94 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered
green
1 sentence2017Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered, 229 Ariz. 193 , 196 ¶ 9, 273 P.3d 64S, 648 (2012). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Berthot v. Security Pacific Bank
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 320, 823 P.2d at 1328 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.