Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas, 570 P.2d 1268.

26 citing documents.

J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
disapproved on other grounds
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
9: Although Washington National Corp. v. Thomas , , disapproved on other grounds by Greenfield v. Cheek , , suggests both rescission and damages may be available “where rescission alone will not adequately compensate the plaintiff,” nothing in that opinion suggests damages would be avail
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
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Washington Nat’l , Geiler v. Arizona Bank, 24 Ariz.App.
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
disapproved on other grounds
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance 733 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance 733 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
we were dealing with a corporate subsidiary situation.
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
we were dealing with a corporate subsidiary situation.
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1980
and Baker v. Walston & Company, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1979
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1979
and Baker v. Walston & Co., Inc., 7 Ariz.App.
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
states, on the authority of Baker , that “knowledge of fault is not a necessary element of a cause of action based upon A.R.S.