Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ferrarell v. Robinson, 465 P.2d 610.

28 citing documents.

Jtf Aviation v. Cliftonlarsonallen LLP Ariz. 2020
Jtf Aviation v. Cliftonlarsonallen LLP Ariz. 2020
To establish that a corporation is the alter ego of an individual, a plaintiff must present “substantial evidence of intermingling of corporate and personal assets, affairs or funds, or that the corporate structure was in any way used for other than legitimate corporate purposes.” Chapman, 124 Ariz. at 103 ().
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
4, ¶¶ 32-33 (Ct. App. June 19, 2014) (relying on signature block as evidence of capacity in which signator bound); (same).
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
For vicarious liability to apply, Plaintiffs must show that the unity of control between YCAA and Yuma County was so pronounced that “the individuality or separateness” of the two “had ceased to exist.” see also Gatecliff, 4 DBT YUMA v. YUMA CO Opinion of the Court 170 Ariz. at 38, 821 P.2d at 729 (“‘When one corporation so dominates and controls another as to make that other a simple instrum
Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
see also Estate of Decamacho ex rel.
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
1975) (“Unless otherwise agreed, a person making or purporting to make a contract with another as agent for a disclosed principal does not become a party to the contract.”(citation omitted)); (“One who signs an agreement as the agent of a fully disclosed principal is not a party to 9Abromovitz similarly asserts Galardi was personally liable even if a partnership did not exist because an individual is liable for a contract he or she enters on behalf of a non-e
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(person “who signs an agreement as the agent of a fully disclosed principal is not a party to that agreement”).
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(person “who signs an agreement as the agent of a fully disclosed principal is not a party to that agreement” and incurs no personal lia *177 bility for breach by the principal).
In Re Guardianship of Pacheco 199 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re Guardianship of Pacheco 199 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
465 P.2d *680 610, 614 (1970) (surety on real estate broker's bond not liable for misappropriations "prior to the effective date of the bond").
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(directors are not liable for corporate contracts unless they have bound themselves individually); A.R.S.
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
Further, there would have to be a showing that observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud, [citations omitted] While it is clear that plaintiffs did not receive the benefit of their bargain, that alone does not constitute any evidence of fraudulent conduct and it is not sufficient to justify the disregarding of the corporate entity.”
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
: “As previously stated, the mere fact that Kramer was an officer and the sole shareholder in R.I.C., Inc., does not in and of itself make this situation one in which the corporate form should be disregarded.