Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 673 P.2d 795.

34 citing documents.

Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Corp. v. Miller (Amfac I)
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
OPINION SWANN, Judge: ¶ 1 In this case, we hold that a claim for legal malpractice arising out of the alleged failure to timely commence an action, or to join a party in an existing action, is subject to the accrual rale established by Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (“Amfac I ”), , and Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (“Amfac II”), *540
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 13 NT relies primarily on Amfac Distribution Corporation v. Miller (Amfac I), , approved as supplemented, , (Amfac II), to support its position.
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
Corp. v. Miller (Amfac I)
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
supplemented by Amfac, P.2d 792.
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
The opinion below relied heavily on Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, (“Amfac I”), approved as 3 supplemented, P.2d 792 (1983) (“Amfac II”), which held that a cause of action for legal malpractice in a civil case did not accrue until the
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
an enforceable Settlement Agreement, without contingencies, did not occur until June 11, 1999, at the earliest, ” and, therefore, “the curr ent [malpractice] claim did not begin to accrue until that date.” P.2d 795 (App. 1983) (Amfac I), which our supreme court later approved.
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(Amfac I), aff'd, , (Amfac II).
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
approved as supplemented, , (statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claim did not commence until harm caused by attorney’s negligence had been finally judicially determined).
Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder 965 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder 965 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 14 The parties’ arguments turn entirely upon a nuance that emerges from comparison of this court’s , (“Amfac I”), af f'd, , with our supreme court’s , (“Amfac II”).
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
this court stated that a legal malpractice action does not accrue until there has been a “final adjudication of the client’s case in which the malpractice allegedly occurred, [since] the element of injury or damage remains speculative and remote.” , (App.1
Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca 902 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca 902 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(Amfac I), approved as supplemented, , (Amfac II).
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
approved as supplemented
Sabes & Richman, Inc. v. Muenzer 431 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
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
2 , approved as supplemented
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice: The facts in this matter are fully set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, , and will not be repeated here.