Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., 739 P.2d 1318.

36 citing documents.

Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See W. Techs., Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., (citing Ariz. Title Ins.
Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., -6, -23 (App. 1986) (dismissing the plaintiff’s tortious interference claims because protected speech cannot be “wrongful” as a matter of law); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“As in defamation, a public official in a false light action must alw
Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See Western Techs., Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., (party injured by negligent misrepresentation “must have relied on the information the defendant supplied”); see also Ness v. Western Sec.
Yeung v. MARIC 232 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Yeung v. MARIC 232 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
st of social importance, which is entitled to protection even at the expense of uncompensated harm to the plaintiffs reputation.” , (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts (4th Ed.1971) § 114, p. 776); , W. Tech., Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc.
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
l relationship between the parties at all.”); Fairway Constructors, -58 (App. 1998) (unfair competition arises out of tort); Bar J (“The duty not to interfere with the contract of another arises out of law, not contract.”); W. Techs., Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., 7-8, 1324-25 (App. 1986) (interference with prospective business advantage not found to arise out of contract); cf. W. Techs., 154 Ariz. at 3, 6-8, 739 P.2d at 1320, 1323-25 (slander of title shares a “common root” with tortious int
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See, e.g., W. Techs., Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , (citing W. Prosser and W. Keeton, The Law of Torts § 128, at 963 (5th ed.1984), and Restatement § 623A).
MacE v. Tremco Liberty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
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
(claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress did not arise out of insurance contract); Bar J , (“The duty not to interfere with the contract of another arises out of law, not contract.”); Western Techs., Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , (“the law imposed on Sverdrup a duty not to speak negligently, injuriously or falsely of Western, ‘separate and apart’ from any duty that the contract between the Board and Sverdrup imposes”).
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
The court did not consider there — as this court later considered in Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , and as we are obliged to consider here — whether the circumstances would support an ordinary negligence claim separate and distinct from the negligent misrepresentation claim.
Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Whether the privilege exists is a question of law for the court, and may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss____ Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 613 , 688 P.2d at 621 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); accord, Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , (“An absolute privilege exists for participants in judicial proceedings.”); , (“One of the most widely recognized absolute privileges is that afforded participants in judicial proceedings.”) 6 In light of the
Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Moreover, to adopt Defendant Darragh’s interpretation of Western [Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , ] would cloak virtually any appraisal performed at the request of a governmental entity with absolute immunity.
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., -8, -25 (App.1986).
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
See Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdup & Parcel, Inc., , (even if trial court improperly considered matters outside pleadings in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff failed to demonstrate harm because complaint failed to state cause of action).
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , Todd v. Cox, 20 Ariz.App.
Aldabbagh v. Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 783 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Aldabbagh v. Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 783 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc.
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In the case of Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., , this court stated: [The Plaintiff’s] brief concentrates on foreseeability of harm as a component of the duty owed by [Defendant to Plaintiff] in making these representations.
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
See also Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc.
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See also, , , Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., -9 , -26 (App.1986).