Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alaface v. National Investment Co., 892 P.2d 1375.

43 citing documents.

Sierra Verde v. McLaren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sierra Verde v. McLaren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Trust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Trust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., (“A plaintiff who makes a claim of negligence per se must show that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of his or her injuries.”).
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (negligent misrepresentation); (breach of fiduciary duty).
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., (consumer fraud action accrues when "the plaintiff knows or should have known of both the what and who elements of causation") (emphasis and quotation omitted).
Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., (holding violation of statute enacted to protect public safety constitutes negligence per se).
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., -93 & n.2, 892 P.2d.
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., , (“[A] consumer fraud action must be initiated within one year after the cause of action accrues.”); Murry v. Western Amer.
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Thompson v. Pima County 243 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Thompson v. Pima County 243 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Co., (concluding without discussion that statutory consumer fraud claim is “liability created by statute” under § 12- 541(5), despite provision of penalties for violation of act in A.R.S.
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Diefenbach v. Holmberg 26 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Diefenbach v. Holmberg 26 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
3 In light of the clear differences between the definitions of “termination” and “modification” and our duty to interpret the language of § 25-327(B) in accordance with its ordinary meaning, , we agree with the reasoning in Marriage of Benjamins and conclude that the terms are not synonymous.
Andrews v. Eddie's Place, Inc. 16 P.3d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Andrews v. Eddie's Place, Inc. 16 P.3d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., -94 , -83 (App.1994), we held that no right of action for damages existed by virtue of the subdivision reporting statutes.
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 18 -92 , -81 (1994), for the proposition that a plaintiffs cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows he or she is damaged and knows or should know who and what caused that damage.
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Co., , see also Hayes v. Continental Ins.
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Co., , (in construing a statute, we may “consider [its] context ...
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Laws Ch. 14, § 3; -97 , -86 (App. 1994) (laws are to insure that residential developments have adequate streets, utilities, and drainage and that land is usable and safe).
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997