Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, 927 P.2d 796.

47 citing documents.

Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“A claim for legal malpractice accrues when: (1) the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the attorney’s negligent conduct; and (2) the plaintiff’s damages are ascertainable, and not speculative or contingent.” Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
De Petris v. De Petris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
De Petris v. De Petris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, (noting that ascertainable, not speculative or contingent, damages are required before a claim for legal malpractice accrues).
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, A.R.S.
Pain Management Clinic, P.C. v. Preese 275 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Pain Management Clinic, P.C. v. Preese 275 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
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
*507 Accrual date ¶ 12 A legal malpractice claim accrues when “(1) the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the attorney’s negligent conduct; and (2) the plaintiffs damages are ascertainable, and not speculative or contingent.” ¶ 13 , (quoting Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, , ).
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
“Traditionally stated, this rule provides that a claim for attorney negligence cannot accrue until the client knows or should know of his attorney’s negligent conduct.” Id.; see also Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, , (“A claim for legal malpractice accrues when: (1) the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the attorney’s negligent conduct; and (2) the plaintiffs damages are ascertainable, and not speculative or contingent.”).
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
§ 12-542, which provides that such claims must be brought “within two years after the cause of action accrues.” See Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Banner Health v. Medical Savings Insurance 163 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
2; cf. Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, (whether parties were of unsound mind, which would have tolled statute of limitations, was factual question for jury).
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
593 ¶ 17, (emphasizing that assignments encourage commercialization of claims); Botma, 202 Ariz. at 17 ¶¶ 11-13, 39 P.3d at 541 ; Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, , (holding that assignment of legal-malpractice claim not permitted because of personal nature of attorney-client relationship and fiduciary and ethical duty attorney owes to client).
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
See Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
136, 140, (“[A] cause of action for legal malpractice cannot be assigned.”).
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
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Botma v. Huser 39 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Botma v. Huser 39 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, , the court held that a claim for legal malpractice could not be assigned to a trust.
Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco 981 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco 981 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc. 979 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc. 979 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon
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
at 258 , 902 P.2d at 1362 ; see Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, , (“A claim for legal malpractice accrues when: (1) the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the attorney’s negligent conduct; and (2) the plaintiffs damages are ascertainable, and not speculative or contingent.”) (Citations omitted).
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss, & Salmon