Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sato v. Van Denburgh, 599 P.2d 181.

105 citing documents.

Kowske v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 863 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Kowske v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 863 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
(action filed after two year statute of limitations was barred where plaintiff advised of accountant’s negligence during those two years).
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand 848 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand 848 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
5 , (“negligent performance of professional services by an accountant sounds in tort”); see generally Russel L. Wald, Annotation, Accountant’s Malpractice Liability to Client, 92 A.L.R.3d 396 , 411-31 (1979).
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C. 816 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C. 816 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
29 , ], the cases this *579 Court cited in Sato [v. Van Denburgh, , ] for the point that a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the defendant’s negligent conduct, there was no question that damages did exist prior to the plaintiff’s discovery of the defendant’s negligence.
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Northern Contracting Company, 117 Ariz. at 377 , 573 P.2d at 68
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 770 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 770 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
As Cooney has pointed out, the rule in Arizona is that a “cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise *141 of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct.”
Zuck v. State 764 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Zuck v. State 764 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Canteen Corp. v. SUP. COURT IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 763 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Canteen Corp. v. SUP. COURT IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 763 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
See, e.g., Wenk v. Horizon Moving & Storage Co., , , (both dealing with the attempt to recover attorney’s fees for breach of bailment contract implied in fact); , (declining to apply contract statute of limitations in malpractice action against accountant); Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., , (disallowing attorney’s fees in malpractice action against accountant); Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , 653
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
For example, , the claim for damages resulted from the negligent performance of professional services rendered by an accountant.
RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
e cases (cases in which defendant breached some duty owed plaintiff by virtue of a special relationship) the discovery rule has been recognized: Yazzie v. Olney, Levy, Kaplan & Tenner, 593 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.1979) (applying Arizona law; statute of limitations on tort claims can be tolled by plaintiff s reasonable failure to discover the facts giving rise to those claims); , (action against an accountant); , (claim against a lawyer); , (cause of action against a surgeon); Lederman v. Phelps Do
Kellogg v. Willy's Motors, Inc. 680 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Kellogg v. Willy's Motors, Inc. 680 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Hall v. Romero 685 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hall v. Romero 685 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
We are aware of the principle that when there is substantial doubt as to which limitation period is applicable, the longer should be applied, , however, we are not in substantial doubt.
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
in which this Court stated that “Arizona has long followed the rule that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct, , Niels
Clark v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Arizona, Inc. 673 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Clark v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Arizona, Inc. 673 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
involving alleged negligence of an accountant, and in Nielson v. Arizona Title Ins.
Phil W. Morris Co. v. Schwartz 673 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Phil W. Morris Co. v. Schwartz 673 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
LAW In cases of professional malpractice, “Arizona has long followed the rule that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct, or when the plaintiff is first able to sue.” , (citations omitted).
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Hansen v. Stoll 636 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hansen v. Stoll 636 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
(action for negligent accounting).
Corral v. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance 630 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Corral v. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance 630 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
in which the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “When defendant files a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff is obligated to present, either by affidavit or some other evidence, facts controverting the defendant’s affidavit.” Id.
Portonova v. Wilkinson 627 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1981