Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Berry v. McLeod, 604 P.2d 610.

34 citing documents.

Moldovan v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Moldovan v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(), but need not investigate fraud, see Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins.
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶23 Arizona Escrow would not have owed a duty to act towards Mago with “scrupulous honesty, skill, and diligence,” absent Mago’s contract.
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
t responsive, because neither party “asked the trial court to ‘call the jurors’ attention thereto, and send them back for further deliberation,” issue waived on appeal), vacated on other grounds, –36 (App. 1994) (although verdicts on damages were inconsistent, defendants’ failure to invoke Rule 49(c) constituted waiver); (where counsel’s statements to trial court suggested “consent” to not resubmitting verdicts to jury, party could not claim court erred in not sending verdicts back under Rule 49
Mago v. Az Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mago v. Az Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In carrying out their duties, escrow agents must act with “scrupulous honesty, skill, and diligence.”
Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Generally, there is no duty to disclose information received by an escrow agent unless such a duty is required by the terms of the agreement, but we hold that there is an exception to the foregoing rule when the escrow agent [k]nows that a fraud is being committed on a party to an escrow and the failure
Maxfield v. Martin 173 P.3d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Maxfield v. Martin 173 P.3d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
As such he must perform his responsibilities with “scrupulous honesty, skill, and diligence.” , (citations omitted).
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 47 , but that case does not show that the inconsistency here was incurable.
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
in which the parties recognized that the verdicts were hopelessly inconsistent and therefore concluded that sending the verdicts back to the jury for further deliberations would be futile.
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(imposing a duty to disclose to parties to the escrow when a title company has knowledge that a fraud is being committed); Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins.
Manley v. Ticor Title Insurance 816 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1991
Manley v. Ticor Title Insurance 816 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1991
See Burkons, at 353-354, 813 P.2d at 718-719 ( , ).
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Manley v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Manley v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wright v. Mayberry 762 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Wright v. Mayberry 762 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(no waiver of right to new trial where verdicts were hopelessly inconsistent and resubmission would have been futile).
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
Recently, , we held: “Generally, there is no duty to disclose information received by an escrow agent unless such a duty is required by the terms of the agreement, but we hold that there is an exception to the foregoing rule when the escrow agent knows that a fraud is being committed on a party to an escrow

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by