Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 599 P.2d 777.

41 citing documents.

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
State v. Superior Court (Davis), 123 Ariz. 324, P.2d 604 (1980).
Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
§ 77q.” State v. Superior Court (Davis), P.2d 604 (1980).
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
[§ ] 44-2003(A).” The Trust contends that a violation of § 44-1991(A) is all that is necessary to bring an action for rescission pursuant to § 44-2001(A) based upon aiding and abetting liability and argues “[t]here is no requirement that the primary violator fall within [§ ] 44-2003(A).” 9 ¶ 25 In support of its argument
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
[§] 44-2003(A).” The Trust contends that a violation of § 44-1991(A) is all that is necessary to bring an action for rescission pursuant to § 44-2001(A) based upon aiding and abetting liability and argues “[t]here is no requirement that the primary violator fall within [§] 44-2003(A).” 9 ¶25 In support of its argument, the Trust relies on State v. Superior Court, 123 Ariz. 324, overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gunnison, 127 Ariz. 110
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See State v. Superior Ct. (Davis)
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
overruled in part, , as “binding Supreme Court precedent” for its position.
Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See, , , overruled on other grounds, , (Arizona Corporation Commission’s statutory power to regulate thrift companies created duty to protect thrift company depositors); Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District, supra (implic
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
On the other hand, , overruled on other grounds
University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 1294 Ariz. 1983
University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 1294 Ariz. 1983
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1982
Moore v. State 656 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Moore v. State 656 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Ryan v. State 656 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Bill Moore Motor Homes, Inc. v. State 629 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bill Moore Motor Homes, Inc. v. State 629 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Moore points out, however, , the Arizona Supreme Court imposed liability against the state in favor of depositors of a thrift association on the basis that the statutory scheme involved narrowed the public duty to those plaintiffs because “the public duty has been created by statutory language that is designed to protect a
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cady v. State 630 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
which involved an action by the depositors of a thrift association against the regulatory authorities of the state seeking liability against those authorities for failure to perform their statutory duties in controlling the financial affairs of the thrift association.
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
Later we reaffirmed our position in a
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
does not support appellant’s argument because there the statutes enumerated the Corporation Commission’s duties specifically and were clearly directed to the protection of the thrift company depositors, a particular class of persons.
Oleszczuk v. State 604 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1979
Oleszczuk v. State 604 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1979
To hold that article 17 does not create a duty that extends from the Corporation Commission to the individual depositor would be to render the article meaningless, (footnote omitted)”