Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dawson v. Withycombe, 163 P.3d 1034.

216 citing documents.

Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Brookover, n.2, 156 P.3d at 1162 n.2 (appellate court will not consider arguments not presented to trial court at time trial court considered summary judgment motion); n.11, n.11 (App. 2007) (arguments not raised in opening brief waived).
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Constructive fraud, in contrast, is “ ‘a breach of legal or equitable duty which, without regard to moral guilt or intent of the person charged, the law declares fraudulent because the breach tends to deceive others, violates public or private confidences, or injures public interests.’ ”
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
at 23 (“Arizona [law] recognizes aiding and abetting as embodied in Restatement [ (Second) of Torts] § 876(b), that a person who aids and abets a tortfeasor is himself liable for the resulting harm to a third person.”); Security Title Agency, , (recognizing aiding and abetting claim for breach of fiduciary duty); -03, ¶¶ 49-52 , -53 (App.2007) (discussing aiding and abetting fraud).
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 50 , (“[T]he knowledge requirement may be satisfied by showing general awareness of the primary tortfeasor’s fraudulent scheme.”).
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶46 , (“Under Arizona law, a director cannot be liable without some kind of personal participation in the tort or at least acquiescence by knowledge of the tort combined with a failure to act.”).