DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 945 P.2d 317.

113 citing documents.

  • Botma v. Huser 39 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    the court held that claims for auditor negligence were assignable, but stated that claims for attorney negligence were not assignable because of “the ‘uniquely personal’ nature of the attorney-client relationship and the duty imposed on the attorney.” Id.
  • Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (recognizing that, although the reviewing court must search for “a reasonable way to read the verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case ...
  • State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See, 43 , 354 (App.1996) (addressing issues briefed and subject to recurrence on remand).
  • Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ¶ 15 “In a fiduciary relationship, the fiduciary holds ‘superiority of position’ over the beneficiary.” , (quoting Rhoads, 145 Ariz. at 149 , 700 P.2d at 847 ).
  • State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    -29 , -340 (App.1996) petition and cross petition for review pending, (failure to challenge by motion for directed verdict a prior determination of law unrelated to sufficiency of evidence does not preclude later reassertion of the challenge by motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict).
  • McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 945 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 945 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    See, -71 , -87 (1986) (a hotel charged with dram shop liability for continuing to serve liquor to an obviously intoxicated patron was permitted to attribute fault to the patron for continuing to drink); -43 , -354 (App.1996) (an accounting firm charged with negligent failure to detect an auditing client’s financial mismanagement and inaccurate reporting was permitted to allocate fault to its auditing client for its financial mismanagement and inaccurate reports); Thomas v. First Interstate Bank,