Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barnes v. Lopez, 544 P.2d 694.

40 citing documents.

Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(recognizing well-settled principle “that a party can not free himself from fraud by incorporating [an integration clause] in a contract”); (noting the “rule of merger has several important exceptions,” including fraud); (emphasizing that the presence of a merger provision in a contract does not bar proof of fraud in the inducement); see also Soli v. Soli, 534 N.W.2d 21, 23 (N.D.
Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶14 P.2d 694 (1976), LeMad asserts that Wilde’s alleged misrepresentations were actionable because they were knowingly misleading.
Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Associates LLC 316 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Associates LLC 316 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
bbeno, , (placing the burden on the breaching party to demonstrate that mitigation — the reasonable effort to rent at fair rental value — was probable); see Circle K , (holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff had behaved unreasonably); , (holding that the breaching party must show that mitigation was “probable” and that evidence of a mere failure to act was “no defense”).
West Pinal Family Health Center, Inc. v. McBryde 785 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
West Pinal Family Health Center, Inc. v. McBryde 785 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
C. McCormick, Damages at 127 (1935); see also Coury Bros. Ranches, , , Fulton v. Woodford, 17 Ariz.App.
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
in support of their argument that they had a right to rely on Encanto’s alleged misrepresentations.
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
Cearley v. Wieser 727 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Cearley v. Wieser 727 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Appellants contend finally that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that “a misrepresentation of law does not by itself constitute actionable fraud.” While a misrepresentation of the law does not constitute actionable fraud at common law, , the elements of a claim for relief under the Consumer Fraud Act are not necessarily identical to the elements of a common law action.
Hill v. Jones 725 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hill v. Jones 725 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
e for a party thereto to free himself from the consequences of his own fraud in procuring its execution is invalid and necessarily constitutes no defense.” The court went on to hold that “parol evidence is always admissible to show fraud, and this is true, even though it has the effect of varying the terms of a writing between the parties.” 57 Ariz. at 506-507 , 115 P.2d at 166
Skousen v. W.C. Olsen Investment Co. 717 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Skousen v. W.C. Olsen Investment Co. 717 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Estes Company v. Aztec Construction, Inc., , Shirley v. National Applicators of California, Inc.
Northern Arizona Gas Service, Inc. v. Petrolane Transport, Inc. 702 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Northern Arizona Gas Service, Inc. v. Petrolane Transport, Inc. 702 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Coury Bros. Ranches, , Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc.
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
Shirley v. National Applicators of California, Inc.
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
It says, , , , that cases allowing recovery against brokers for the misstatements of their salesmen share the following four elements in common: 1) The broker had a listing and presumably received a co
Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane 641 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane 641 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Stewart Title & Trust v. Pribbeno 628 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Stewart Title & Trust v. Pribbeno 628 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Sun Lodge, Inc. v. Ramada Development Co. 606 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Sun Lodge, Inc. v. Ramada Development Co. 606 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Anaconda Co. v. Chapman-Dyer Steel Manufacturing Co. 571 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Anaconda Co. v. Chapman-Dyer Steel Manufacturing Co. 571 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
76 , , Royal Properties, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Company, 13 Ariz.App.
Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 569 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 569 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shirley v. National Applicators of California, Inc. 566 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shirley v. National Applicators of California, Inc. 566 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977