Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca, 902 P.2d 1354.

39 citing documents.

DMB REALCO v. MARISCAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
v. Lewis and Roca, –53 (App. 1995).
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, (in malpractice context, accrual begins “before the client sustains all, or even 8 LIBERTI v. CITY OF SCOTTSDALE Opinion of the Court the greater part, of the damages” (quoting Ariz. Mgmt.
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
v. Lewis & Roca, ); see also § 12-542.
Platte River v. Pekrul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Platte River v. Pekrul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, -53 (App. 1995).
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, (cleaned up), accrual of a lienholder’s claim for wrongful release of its lien is not delayed until the property is sold and the lienholder left empty- handed.
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, -53 , -57 (App. 1995).
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, (citations omitted).
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, , (“It is only in the context of litigation, however, that accrual of the cause of action is deferred until the litigation in which the malpractice arose is finally resolved.” (citations omitted)); Ariz. Mgmt.
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co. v. Lewis & Roca, , (holding that the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action “begins to run when a cause of action accrues”).
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
¶ 14 At oral argument, however, Larsen urged us to follow Division One’s
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
that accrual of the cause of action is deferred until the litigation in which the malpractice arose is finally resolved.”