Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 673 P.2d 792.

52 citing documents.

DMB REALCO v. MARISCAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK, et al. Decision of the Court 154 (1983).
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Corp. v. Miller (Amfac II)
Andrich v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Andrich v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶18 for the proposition that a claim for conversion does not accrue until actual injury or damages occur.
Enterprising v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Enterprising v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(holding that a cause of action for negligence requires that “actual injury or damages must be sustained”); KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins.
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thus, “even where a plaintiff has discovered actual negligence, if he has sustained no damages, he has no cause of action.”
De Petris v. De Petris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
De Petris v. De Petris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moreover, any damages must be demonstrated, and must be ascertainable, not speculative.
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
OPINION SWANN, Judge: ¶ 1 In this case, we hold that a claim for legal malpractice arising out of the alleged failure to timely commence an action, or to join a party in an existing action, is subject to the accrual rale established by Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (“Amfac I ”), , and Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (“Amfac II”), *540
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 13 NT relies primarily on Amfac Distribution Corporation v. Miller (Amfac I), , approved as supplemented, , (Amfac II), to support its position.
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Corp. v. Miller (Amfac II)
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶12 In the other two cases relied upon by Keonjian, P.3d 26 (2004), P.2d 792 (1983), the issue was when a cause of action accrues for legal malpractice that occurred in the course of litigation.
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
The opinion below relied heavily on Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, (“Amfac I”), approved as 3 supplemented, P.2d 792 (1983) (“Amfac II”), which held that a cause of action for legal malpractice in a civil case did not accrue until the underlying civil proceedings, including all appeals, had concluded.
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
P.2d 792 (1983) (Amfac II); see also Taylor v. State Farm Mut.
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(Amfac I), aff'd, , (Amfac II).
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
approved as supplemented, , (statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claim did not commence until harm caused by attorney’s negligence had been finally judicially determined).
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder 965 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder 965 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 1 When legal malpractice occurs in the course of litigation, the malpractice claim does not accrue, and the statute of limitations does not start to run, until the appellate process in the underlying litigation is “completed or is waived by a failure to appeal.”
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
this court stated that a legal malpractice action does not accrue until there has been a “final adjudication of the client’s case in which the malpractice allegedly occurred, [since] the element of injury or damage remains speculative and remote.” , ajfd as supplemented
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Taylor’s , is misplaced.
Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca 902 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca 902 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(Amfac I), approved as supplemented, , (Amfac II).
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C., P.2d 234 (App.1991).
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
approved as supplemented
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
The Arizona Supreme Court’s , establishes this requirement.
Sabes & Richman, Inc. v. Muenzer 431 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by