Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman, 510 P.2d 400.

32 citing documents.

McCormick v. the Multistate Lottery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
McCormick v. the Multistate Lottery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Although McCormick’s proposed amended complaint alleged the purchase of lottery tickets, the court found he “[did] not and cannot allege [the] lottery tickets were converted because he has no possessory right to the funds.” See Autoville, -93 (1973).
Symbiont v. Bjm Feed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Symbiont v. Bjm Feed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶28 Under Arizona law, a conversion claim for money is cognizable only if the funds “can be described, identified or segregated, and an obligation to treat it in a specific manner is established.” Autoville
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
); Autoville, (noting the gravamen of conversion is the wrongful interference with another’s ownership or right of possession).
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Explained Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
24 ¶ 54 Second, as we explained in Autoville, , money can be the subject of a conversion action if the funds can be described, identified or segregated and there is an obligation to treat the funds in a specific manner.
Dayka & Hackett, LLC v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. 269 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dayka & Hackett, LLC v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. 269 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
And money “can be the subject of a conversion claim if the money „can be described, identified or segregated, and an obligation to treat it in a specific manner is established.‟” Id., quoting Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman, 20 Ariz. App. 89, 91
Case Corp. v. Gehrke 91 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Case Corp. v. Gehrke 91 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Citing Autoville, , as controlling, the Gehrkes argued that non-specified and unsegregated funds could not be the subject of a conversion claim.
Universal Marketing & Entertainment, Inc. v. Bank One of Arizona, N.A. 53 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Universal Marketing & Entertainment, Inc. v. Bank One of Arizona, N.A. 53 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 15 Universal relies, in arguing the contrary, upon the following general statement in Autoville, , (citation omitted): At early common law there was some question as to whether money could be the subject of a conversion because of its lack of specific identification.
Cassell v. General Motors Corp. 740 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cassell v. General Motors Corp. 740 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Woudenberg Leasing Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 698 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Woudenberg Leasing Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 698 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Autoville, , also involved conversion of the proceeds of the sale of an automobile.
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cf. Autoville, -93 , -404 (1973).
Sterling Boat Co. v. Arizona Marine, Inc. 653 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Sterling Boat Co. v. Arizona Marine, Inc. 653 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Since both parties rely heavily on language from the decision of this court in Autoville, , we proceed to discuss it.
Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
See also, in regard to community liability for the intentional tort of one spouse, , Auto ville
Insurance Co. of North America v. General Electric Credit Corp. 579 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Insurance Co. of North America v. General Electric Credit Corp. 579 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
157 , Autoville, , United Bonding Insurance Co. v. Swartz, 12 Ariz.App.
Western Surety Co. v. Union Investment Co. 567 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Western Surety Co. v. Union Investment Co. 567 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In the case of Autoville, , we had occasion to consider whether the failure of an automobile dealer to pay the proceeds of the sale of automobiles to the financer of.
Empire Fire & Marine Insurance v. First National Bank 546 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Empire Fire & Marine Insurance v. First National Bank 546 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Appellant’s , is misplaced.