Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Greenfield v. Cheek, 593 P.2d 280.

25 citing documents.

J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
disapproved on other grounds
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
See Baker v. Walston & Co. , , 591 n.1, , 149 n.1 (1968), disapproved on other grounds by Greenfield v. Cheek
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
disapproved on other grounds
Vairo v. Clayden 734 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Vairo v. Clayden 734 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
approved, , Rose v. Dobras, 128 Ariz. at 211 , 624 P.2d at 889 .
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. 733 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. 733 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
we were dealing with a corporate subsidiary situation.
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
we were dealing with a corporate subsidiary situation.
Rose v. Dobras 624 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rose v. Dobras 624 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1980
§ 44-1991(2) , expressly overruling anything to the contrary in Washington National Corporation v. Thomas, supra, and Baker v. Walston & Company, supra.
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
1 , and held that an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud is a prerequisite to a claim for relief under A.R.S.
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979