Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rose v. Dobras, 624 P.2d 887.

34 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
10 Even assuming such a delayed election might be permitted in some cases, we note such attempt may in certain circumstances be inappropriate; for example, if the purchaser “delayed in electing the remedy of rescission to see if avoidance or affirmance would be more profitable.”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission 352 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission 352 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
2126 , 48 L.Ed.2d 757 (1976) (“The question of materiality, it is universally agreed, is an objective one, involving the significance of an omitted or misrepresented fact to a reasonable investor.”); , (adopting TSC Industries as the Arizona standard for materiality under securities law).
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
d that when a defrauded purchaser of securities brings an action for rescissonary damages under § 44-2001, “the general view is that tender to the issuer *10 or to the court at the commencement of the action is sufficient” because such tender shows that the purchaser did not “delay[ ] in electing the remedy of rescission to see if avoidance or affirmance would be more profitable.”
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
2126 , 48 L.Ed.2d 757 (1976); , (adopting the TSC Industries standard as the standard for “materiality of omitted facts”).
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
See Rose v. Dobras , , Bullard v. Garvin
Siporin v. Carrington 23 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Siporin v. Carrington 23 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Laws ch. 18, § 20; , -10 , (“The Act is designed to be prophylactic if possible, remedial only if necessary.”).
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
Nutek Information Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 977 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Nutek Information Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 977 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17 , 734 P.2d at 114
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
because § 1991 already requires that any misstatement be made “in connection with” a securities transaction; and (ii) to require more than that the misstatements merely had the effect of influencing a buyer to make a sale, because § 1991 already requires that any false statements be “material,” i.e., that it “assume actual significance in deliberations of the reasonable buyer.” [ , ].
Foy v. Thorp 920 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Foy v. Thorp 920 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
*158 (App.1987); Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc.
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Rosier v. First Financial Capital Corp. 889 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Rosier v. First Financial Capital Corp. 889 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Vairo v. Clayden 734 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Vairo v. Clayden 734 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. 733 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. 733 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
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
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Little v. Valley National Bank of Arizona, 650 F.2d 218, 222 (9th Cir. 1981); , 624 *
Sullivan v. Metro Productions, Inc. 724 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Sullivan v. Metro Productions, Inc. 724 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986