Legal Opinion

State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 31, 1985No. 2 CA-CIV 5436PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

This appeal arises out of a summary judgment in which the trial court held that probation officers are officers, agents and employees of the judicial department of the state and are entitled to insurance coverage under A.R.S. § 41-621.

On August 30, 1982, various minor plaintiffs initiated a tort action against the Pima County Adult Probation Department, four named adult probation officers, the State of Arizona and Pima County, claiming that they were injured as a result of the probation department’s alleged negligence in supervising the probation of Jesse Christopher.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation DepartmentArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Mann v. County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Winter v. CoorArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
  5. Broomfield v. Maricopa CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1975

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State, Dept. of Admin. v. SchallockArizona Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Salerno v. EspinozaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  3. DeSilva v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  4. Collins v. CorbinArizona Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Dora v. AcheyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API