Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS., 995 P.2d 721.

26 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Servs., ¶ 45 (App. 1999)).
State v. Griffith 449 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Griffith 449 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Servs., ¶ 41 (App. 1999) (explaining that laying foundation under the business records exception requires evidence of how a record was kept in the regular course of business and thus testimony only about how a record was obtained did not suffice).
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Helal v. Winski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Helal v. Winski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Servs., ¶ 11, The Winskis included “breach of fiduciary duty” in their briefs’ headings, but because they presented no arguments that Mr. Winski did not breach his fiduciary duty on appeal, they have waived the issue.
Lorenz v. State 364 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lorenz v. State 364 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Servs., ¶ 29 (App. 1999).
Preston v. Amadei 357 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Preston v. Amadei 357 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Taeger v. Catholic Family and Comm’y Servs., ¶ 34 (App. 1999).
Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Servs., ¶ 11 , (quoting In re McDonnell’s Estate, -53 , ).
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
Servs., , see also Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶51 As to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Max cites to Taeger v. Catholic Family & Community Services
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
6 ¶ 17 The court of appeals has described a fiduciary relationship as “something approximating business agency, professional relationship, or family tie impelling or inducing the trusting party to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise.” Taeger v. Catholic Family & Community Services, ¶ 11, ¶ 11 (App. 1999) (emphasis added, citations omitted).
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by