Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Peery v. Hansen, 585 P.2d 574.
- Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Motta v. Flagstar Bank
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. O’Malley Lumber Co., and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (1977)); (“It is clear that before a private party may exert a claim under the 3 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.
- State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc.
258 P.3d 289
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., ¶ 14 , (common-law fraud elements); , (CFA broader in scope than common-law fraud); , (violation of *478 CFA “more easily shown” than common-law fraud).
- Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-
Aaron v. Fromkin
994 P.2d 1039
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, , Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc.
- Waste Manufacturing & Leasing Corp. v. Hambicki 900 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Waste Manufacturing & Leasing Corp. v. Hambicki 900 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Hameroff 884 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
- State v. Hameroff 884 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
- 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
- Murdock v. Balle 696 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
Murdock v. Balle
696 P.2d 230
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
the supreme court held that § 44-1533 creates a private right of action in favor of persons damaged by practices declared unlawful by the Act, noting that “a private remedy is highly desirable in order to control fraud in the market place.” , the court distinguished a cause of action brought pursuant to the Act from an action for common law fraud, holding that “the right to rely, though a necessary element in a common law fraud action, is not essential to a statutory fraud action in Arizona.” Th
- Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
-
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.
666 P.2d 83
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
that a “private individual’s relief under the Consumer Protection [sic] Act is limited to the recovery of actual damages suffered as a result of such unlawful act or practice.” 120 Ariz. at 270 , .
- Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc. 647 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1982
-
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
647 P.2d 629
Ariz. 1982
Nielson v. Flashberg, supra
- 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
- Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
-
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp.
617 P.2d 767
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Parks v. Macro-Dynamics, Inc.
- People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust 618 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-
People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust
618 P.2d 1086
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
(the right to rely is not a necessary element in a private action under the Consumer Fraud Act).
- Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc. 612 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc. 612 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- 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
Though conceivably the rules governing common law fraud do not apply to a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act, see Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , and special concurring opinion of Howard, J., , no such distinction was advanced in Sun Lodge’s motion for new trial.
- Murry v. Western American Mortgage Co. 604 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Murry v. Western American Mortgage Co. 604 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Flower World of America, Inc. v. Wenzel 594 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- Criticized Flower World of America, Inc. v. Wenzel 594 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978