Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 647 P.2d 629.

60 citing documents.

Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (negligent misrepresentation); (intentional misrepresentation); Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., (common law fraud); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., –49 (App. 1984) (constructive fraud).
Fleming v. Fripps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fleming v. Fripps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
See, e.g., Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., (addressing fraud in sale of home).
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., (fraud); KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins.
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(citing Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., ).
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
§ 44-1991(A) (2003); Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , (elements of fraud).
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See also Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., -7, ¶ 24 , -20 (2001) (rule in Arizona is that punitive damages may be awarded against employer for acts of employee as long as acts committed in furtherance of employer’s business and within scope of employment); Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , (same).
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Servs., , see also Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Compare Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
336, 338-39 , -20 (1969)); see also Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , Boyce, 26 Ariz. at 174, 223 P. at 120.
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , *503 502
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
i. Intentional Fraud A showing of fraud requires a concurrence of nine elements, including the “speaker’s intent that [the false representation] be acted upon by the recipient in the manner reasonably contemplated.” Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , see also Stewart v. Phoenix Nat.
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
National Housing Industries, Inc. v. E.L.
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith 803 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith 803 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Jacobson v. Superior Court 743 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Jacobson v. Superior Court 743 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
The rule in Arizona has been that a principal is liable if his agent’s tort occurred “in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of the agent’s employment.”
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1987
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1987
336, 338-39 , -20 (1969), -76 , 223 P. 116, 120 (1924)
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1986
Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1986
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , see also Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms, 743 F.2d 638, 643 (9th Cir.1984).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. 725 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. 725 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
This case, however, is much more similar to Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., , where our supreme court allowed an action for fraud in a situation in which a developer informed prospective home purchasers that they would be eligible for tax credits for purchasing a particular home when in fact they were not eligible.