Kilpatrick v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that \constitutions must be construed as a whole and their various parts must be read together\
• recognizing that “constitutions must be construed as a whole and their various parts must be read together”
• holding that, under former worker’s compensation statutes, employee had right of action against fellow employee for injuries sustained in course of employment
• stating that “[without] room for quibbling” and “[w]ithout limitation” the anti-abrogation clause “confers the right to recover damages for injuries as existing under the common law”
• observing that “we would be compelled to construe [two sections of the Arizona constitution] together for constitutions must be construed as a whole and their various parts read together”
• invalidating under article 2, section 31 a statute limiting the liability of an employee for injury inflicted on a co-employee to the amount allowed by compensation benefits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).