Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Management Corp. v. Kallof, 688 P.2d 710.

35 citing documents.

DMB REALCO v. MARISCAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
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
-68 , -14 (App.1983) (holding that legal malpractice plaintiff began to sustain harm upon execution of settlement agreement, and potential recovery against other party to agreement did not delay accrual of legal malpractice claim against drafting attorney).
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-67, -13 (App. 1984); ¶ 10
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(recognizing that a cause of action arises “before the client sustains all, or even the greater part, of the damages occasioned by his attorney’s negligence” (citations omitted)).
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
Corp. v. Kallof , (“AMFAC was expressly limited to situations where malpractice occurs during the course of litigation.”).
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 acc
Kosman v. State 16 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kosman v. State 16 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
ARL’s primary authority, the court concluded that a cause of action for attorney malpractice based on a defective settlement agreement he had drafted accrued “on the date the settlement agreement was entered into,” not later when the validity of an underlying lease agreement was “judici
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
v. Kallof, , Amfac Distrib.
Myers v. Wood 850 P.2d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Myers v. Wood 850 P.2d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
849, 852 , , : The cause of action arises, however, before the client sustains all, or even the greater part, of the damages occasioned by his attorney’s negligence____ Any appreciable and actual harm flowing from the attorney’s negligent conduct establishes a cause of action upon which the client may sue.
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
Harris argues that instead of Amfac, , which was decided after Amfac.
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C. 816 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C. 816 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
supports the judgment because the harm in Kallof occurred when the settlement agreement was negligently prepared.
Collins v. State 803 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Collins v. State 803 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dryden v. Bell 761 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dryden v. Bell 761 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
§ 12-542, and it could not begin to run in this case until 1) the Drydens sustained some injury from the alleged negligence of Naegle, , and 2) until Drydens were able to bring suit against the Bells.
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. Rail N Ranch Corp. 752 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. Rail N Ranch Corp. 752 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 694 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 694 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Arizona Management Corporation v. Kallof , see also, comment, Rule 8(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP).