Legal Opinion
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided August 23, 2018No. CV-17-0325-PRPublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JUSTICE TIMMER, opinion of the Court:
¶1 The negligence claimant here recovered damages for dog-bite injuries he received when a law enforcement officer intentionally released a police dog against him. We today hold that plaintiffs cannot assert a negligence claim based solely on an officer's intentional use of physical force. The appropriate state-law claim is for battery, and an officer asserting the justification defense set forth in A.R.S. § 13-409 bears the burden of proof on that issue. Plaintiffs may, however, base a negligence claim on conduct by the officer that is independent of the…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Hygh v. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust FundArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- District of Columbia v. ChinnDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- State v. HunterArizona Supreme Court · 1984
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of RegentsDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
- Estate of Randolph v. City of WichitaCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2020
- Unruh v. City of WichitaSupreme Court of Kansas · 2024
- Leibel v. City of BuckeyeDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
- Paul E. v. Courtney F.Arizona Supreme Court · 2019
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.