Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aaron v. Fromkin, 994 P.2d 1039.

25 citing documents.

LE v. NORTH SHORE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 10 (App. 2000) (“While the denial of summary judgment is generally not 9 LE, et al. v. NORTH SHORE, et al. Decision of the Court appealable, when cross-motions are filed, we may enter summary judgment as a matter of law
Wallace v. Irving Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Wallace v. Irving Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 13 (App. 2000) (listing damages as one of the nine necessary elements of common-law fraud).
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fleming v. Fripps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fleming v. Fripps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Echols, 132 Ariz. at 501; ¶ 13 (App. 2000).
Denver v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Denver v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission 352 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission 352 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 44-1991(A)(2); ¶ 15 , (noting A.R.S.
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“Our task is to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact for trial exists, and, if not, whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law.” , 227 ¶ 10
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
In addition, the ASA prescribes the available remedies and categories of potential defendants, and articulates the “elements of securities fraud.” Aaron v. Fromkin, 196 Ariz. 224, 227 ¶ 13, (citing A.R.S.
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
Although denial of summary judgment is generally not appealable, ¶ 10 , certain arguments raised by the State in its summary judgment motion present or incorporate issues of law likely to recur on remand.
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 10 , (citation omitted).
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(footnote: 5) Accordingly, “damage is not an element of securities fraud.” Aaron v. Fromkin
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Aaron v. Fromkin, 196 Ariz. 224
Havasu Springs Resort Co. v. La Paz County 18 P.3d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Havasu Springs Resort Co. v. La Paz County 18 P.3d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
When, as here, “cross-motions are filed, we may enter summary judgment as a matter of law for a party if the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment against that party.” ¶ 10