Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 626 P.2d 1115.

32 citing documents.

Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., (“In light of the purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act, which is to protect the public from deceptive acts .
Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., (citing FTC rule to guide CFA analysis).
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Javier Aguila v. Doug ducey/adhs/dllc Ariz. 2021
Javier Aguila v. Doug ducey/adhs/dllc Ariz. 2021
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., –87 (App. 1981).
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Bmo Harris v. Thruston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bmo Harris v. Thruston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., -87, -19 (App. 1981) (explaining that an inquiry into a party’s past conduct is relevant to the likelihood that a party could engage in similar future conduct).
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., , (holding that when wrongful conduct has been discontinued, court “must look at factors which indicate proof of likelihood to engage in future violations” to determine propriety of injunctive relief).
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., , (holding “[i]t is not necessary to show a specific intent to deceive” under the CFA).
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 275 P.3d 1278 Ariz. 2012
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 275 P.3d 1278 Ariz. 2012
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Act Clause required proof only of “intent to do the act 4 involved.” AutoZone, 227 Ariz. at 478 ¶¶ 18-19, 258 P.3d at 296.
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., , AutoZone argued the CFA’s act clause incorporated an intent element requiring the State to produce evidence— which the State had failed to do—that it had “intended to put inaccurate prices on its shelves or product.” AutoZone further argued its failure to price goods constituted an omissio
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., , (quoting State v. Ralph Williams’ N.W.
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(purpose of consúmer fraud act is to protect public; complainant need only show intent to do the act alleged).
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tolleson 773 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tolleson 773 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., , (the only intent required is an intent to do the act involved).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986