Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304.

148 citing documents.

Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
-95 , -10 (1983) (describing proper pleading under A.R.S.
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
(“incorporation of other remedies” language in statute does not permit it to be applied retrospectively); , (statute must expressly state that it applies retroactively)
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
565 P.2d *358 1278 (1977).
Jung v. City of Phoenix 770 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1989
Jung v. City of Phoenix 770 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1989
Southwestern Teamsters Security Fund v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 757 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Southwestern Teamsters Security Fund v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 757 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
AMCOR Investment Corp. v. Cox Arizona Publications Inc. 764 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
AMCOR Investment Corp. v. Cox Arizona Publications Inc. 764 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Perez v. Maricopa County 760 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Perez v. Maricopa County 760 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
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
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Dressler 738 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Dressler 738 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
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
State v. Duci 727 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1986
State v. Duci 727 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1986
(“where the statutory language is unambiguous, that language must be ordinarily regarded as conclusive, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary”).
Stuart v. Insurance Co. of North America 730 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stuart v. Insurance Co. of North America 730 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Acolla v. Peralta 721 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Acolla v. Peralta 721 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
“it is clear from a reading of the statute that the Arizona legislature intended RICO to be a cumulative remedy.” Since the RICO count is not a criminal proceeding, the Peraltas cannot claim a violation of the double jeopardy clause.
Mathis v. Liquor Board 707 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mathis v. Liquor Board 707 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Harrison v. Ellis 704 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Harrison v. Ellis 704 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
(legislative amendment of consumer fraud act following court decision interpreting the act).
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Cheney v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 698 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1985
Cheney v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 698 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1985
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Hovatter 698 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Hovatter 698 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 700 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 700 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
ARIZONA NEWSPAPERS ASS'N. v. Superior Court 694 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
ARIZONA NEWSPAPERS ASS'N. v. Superior Court 694 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1985
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. Western American Mortgage Co. 694 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. Western American Mortgage Co. 694 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
did state that the amendment to the Consumer Fraud Act mandated the conclusion that the act was intended as an additional source of relief.
Wasserman v. Low 691 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wasserman v. Low 691 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984