# Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides

> Arizona Supreme Court · August 30, 1990 · 165 Ariz. 460

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9791934

## Case

- **Full name:** Ingrid RITCHIE, a Single Woman, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GRAND CANYON SCENIC RIDES, a Utah Corporation, Defendant/Appellee
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 30, 1990
- **Citations:** 165 Ariz. 460; 69 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 6; 799 P.2d 801; 1990 Ariz. LEXIS 225
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cameron
- **Judges:** Feldman, Corcoran, Cameron, Gordon, Moeller
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9791934

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to follow Schiavone interpretation of Rule 15(c) for sake of “uniformity”; holding that "within the period provided by law" means applicable statute of limitations plus time allowed for service of process
- noting that statutes of limitation are aimed at protecting defendants and courts from stale claims, and at protecting defendants from prolonged economic or psychological uncertainty
- rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal analog of Arizona Rule of Procedure 15(c), in part, because “[i]t conflict[ed] with established Arizona law”

## Opinion text

CAMERON, Justice,
specially concurring:
I agree with the result but do not agree that the Hughes case needs to be reversed. In Hughes, supra, as the majority notes, there was no notice to the defendant, formal or informal, of the claim prior to the *469 running of the statute of limitations. McKinley, supra, also cited by the majority, relied on Hughes for the position taken in allowing a relation back in McKinley. As here, the defendant in McKinley had notice and was able to prepare a defense. Defendant was not prejudiced.
I believe Hughes is still good law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9791934. Public record. Not legal advice.