Court of Appeals of Arizona· 9/29/2008

Vasquez v. State

Citations

206 P.3d 753
220 Ariz. 304
2008 Ariz. App. LEXIS 190

How courts have described this case

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

holding that, because primary purpose of identifying human remains was public safety, incidental benefit to family and friends did not establish a duty to identify
agreeing that if the law imposed a duty by police undertaking, every unsolved crime could theoretically give rise to causes of action for negligent investigation by victims or their families
noting the concern of “theoretically giv[ing] rise to a cause of action by the victim or a deceased victim s relatives for negligent investigation” in every unsolved crime
noting the requirement of bodily injury did not apply to the plaintiff’s claim for wrongful han- dling of a dead body under section 868 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
“We do not quarrel with the dissent’s general proposition that defendants, including law enforcement agencies, may acquire a duty of care to others by undertaking conduct.”
“[A] special relationship between an investigating law enforcement agency and a decedent’s family member does not arise merely by the agency undertaking to investigate an accident or resulting death.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pelander, Eckerstrom, Vásquez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.