Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Long v. Buckley, 629 P.2d 557.

44 citing documents.

Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 17 , (“[I]t is often the rule that in such eases the question of accrual is for the jury.”); , (“[Determination of a claim’s accrual date usually is a question of fact----”); , (“[T]he discovery issue itself involves questions of reasonableness and knowledge, matters which this court is particularly wary of deciding as a matter of law.”).
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
b. When Cannon Discovered or Reasonably Should Have Discovered the Negligence ¶ 34 “[U]nder Arizona law, the question of when [a client] knew or should have known of [an attorney’s] negligence is critical to determining whether the statute of limitations has run.”
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
544, 603-04 (1969) (finding failure to file lawsuit within statute of limitations period a breach of contract); Hill v. Williams, 813 A.2d 130, 660-62 (2003) (finding refusal to file motions and schedule hearings a breach of contract); (finding statute of limitations for breach of written contract did not apply where breach not related to express terms of contract).
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
(legal malpractice); (same); P.2d 30 (App. 1980) (medical malpractice); (accounting malpractice action accrues when plaintiff knew or should have known of defendant’s negligent conduct) (citing
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon 927 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon 927 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
this court held: In Arizona, actions for legal malpractice are tort claims subject to the two year statute of limitations for personal injuries, , and actions for personal injuries are not assignable.
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Jordan v. Burgbacher 883 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Jordan v. Burgbacher 883 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Citibank v. Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc., , review denied (1990).
Maricopa Turf, Inc. v. Sunmaster, Inc. 842 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Maricopa Turf, Inc. v. Sunmaster, Inc. 842 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hampton v. Glendale Union High School District 837 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hampton v. Glendale Union High School District 837 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Johnson 811 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Matter of Estate of Johnson 811 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Phoenix Control Systems, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 778 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Phoenix Control Systems, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 778 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Wright v. Hills 780 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Wright v. Hills 780 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Towns v. Frey 721 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Towns v. Frey 721 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
ecial relationship) the discovery rule has been recognized: Yazzie v. Olney, Levy, Kaplan & Tenner, 593 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.1979) (applying Arizona law; statute of limitations on tort claims can be tolled by plaintiff s reasonable failure to discover the facts giving rise to those claims); , (action against an accountant); , (claim against a lawyer); , (cause of action against a surgeon); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 Ariz.App.
Arizona Management Corp. v. Kallof 688 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Arizona Management Corp. v. Kallof 688 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wheeler v. Priebe, 17 Ariz.App.
Schroeder v. Hudgins 690 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Schroeder v. Hudgins 690 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc.
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
§ 12-542 provides that such claims must be commenced “within two years after the cause of action accrues.” The longer six year period of limitations for contract actions does not apply
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983