Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Westdahl, 715 P.2d 288.

26 citing documents.

Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Further, “[a]ttorney’s fees may be awarded under that statute for tort claims that are intertwined with contract claims.”
Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
olaris.” The court then concluded Malhotra thus, “did not, as a matter of law, cause a third party not to perform a contract with another nor did he cause a third party not to enter into or continue a business relation with another.” This conclusion was based upon the principle that “[a] party cannot be held liable in tort for intentional interference with its own contract.”
Mortensen v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mortensen v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Zavala, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1121 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[A] client and lawyer, acting in an agency relationship, constitute a single entity.” Therefore, an attorney, “if acting within the scope of his or her representation, is immune from liability for tortious interference with a client’s contract.”); (“A party cannot be held liable in tort for intentional interference with its own contract.”).
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
The court did not define “interwoven” but cited Pettay v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. (West), which stated that attorney fees could be awarded for litigating the tort claim because it could not have been brought but for the breach of contract, -41, -97 (1985), which allows an award of attorney fees if the tort and contract actions are “intertwined.” Ramsey Air Meds, 6 P.3d at 318.
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
“It is well-established that a successful party on a contract claim may recover not only attorneys’ fees expended on the contract claim, but also fees expended in litigating an ‘interwoven’ tort claim.” Ramsey Air Meds, 6 P.3d at 318; (“Attorney’s fees may be awarded under [§ 12-341.01(A)] for tort claims that are intertwined with contract claims.”); Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., (in cases where “one claim for relief may involve related legal theories,”
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(applying Restatement (Second) of Property § 15.2 (1977)).
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Servs., Inc. (West), , -41 , -97 (1985).
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(party cannot complain about failure to define phrases if instruction with definition not requested); , (cannot claim error for failure to give instruction never requested).
Professional Sports, Inc. v. Gillette Security, Inc. 766 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Professional Sports, Inc. v. Gillette Security, Inc. 766 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See also, , (attorney’s fees may be awarded under statute for tort claims that are intertwined with contract claims).
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
332 (1982); , (landlord’s refusal to consent to assignment of commercial lease unless assignees agreed to pay more rent is unreasonable).