Legal Opinion

Young v. City of Scottsdale

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided July 14, 1998No. 1 CA-CV 97-0298PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NOYES, Judge.

¶ 1 Phillip Young filed a tort claim with the City of Scottsdale, and the City denied the claim. Young then filed this lawsuit, and the City obtained summary judgment on grounds that Young did not comply with the claim statute, Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 12-821.01 (Supp. 1997). Young appeals, and we reverse and remand. We hold that the claim statute neither overrules Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 164 Ariz. 462, 793 P.2d 1129 (App. 1990), nor abrogates the discovery rule. We affirm as to Young’s wife because she filed no claim.

Facts

¶ 2 On…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Felder v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Orme School v. ReevesArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Kenyon v. HammerArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Ryan v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Pritchard v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. HouserArizona Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Yollin v. City of GlendaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  3. County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  4. Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICTCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  5. Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999

9 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