Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fickett v. Superior Court of Pima County, 558 P.2d 988.

35 citing documents.

In Re Guardianship of Sleeth 244 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Guardianship of Sleeth 244 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 36 Finally, we held that “when an attorney undertakes to represent the guardian of an incompetent, he assumes a relationship not only with the guardian but also with the ward,” the intended beneficiary.
Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Explained Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 15 , , (rejecting argument that attorney’s acts were “privileged, unless he has engaged in malicious prosecution or abuse of process”), aff'd in part and vacated in pari on other grounds, , , (attorney may be held liable to an adverse party for lawyer’s acts of fraud or collusion).
Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
First, Capitol contended that it was entitled to sue Fleming directly under the principles outlined in Fickett v. Superior Court, 27 Ariz. App. 793
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
P.2d 988 (1976) (holding that counsel for conservator had fiduciary duty to ward).
Kremser v. Quarles & Brady, L.L.P. 36 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Kremser v. Quarles & Brady, L.L.P. 36 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
which held that attorneys in certain circumstances may owe a duty of reasonable care to non-clients, on the grounds that Mr. Kremser was a sophisticated person engaged in a complex commercial transaction, and was represented by his own attorneys.
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Wetherill contends Wissler “clearly owed a duty” to her and “to his Ghent’s [Renee’s] unrepresented ward, Edward Kerns.” 4 The question of Wissler’s duty presents a legal issue subject to our de .novo review.
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
where a lawyer’s conduct was in issue, it is necessary to balance various factors such as the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the Plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the Plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection betwe
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See generally Restatement (Second) of Agency § 79 and comments
Matter of Estate of Shano 869 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Estate of Shano 869 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
This court held, however, -96 , -91 (1976), that the attorney for a guardian owes a duty of reasonable care to the guardian's ward.
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Franko urges us to impose such a
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Travelers Insurance v. Breese 675 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Travelers Insurance v. Breese 675 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Division Two of this court adopted'a “balance of various factors” approach in determining third-party legal malpractice liability.
Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
There, , in holding that an attorney was not liable for negligence for failing to warn an expert witness not to mention insurance during his testimony.
Lewis v. Swenson 617 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Lewis v. Swenson 617 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-95 , -90 (1976), that: The general rule for many years has been that an attorney could not be liable to one other than his client in an action arising out of his professional duties, in the absence of fraud or collusion.