Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baker v. Walston & Company, 442 P.2d 148.

30 citing documents.

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 Baker v. Walston & Co. , , 591 n.1, , 149 n.1 (1968), disapproved on other grounds by Greenfield v. Cheek
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
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1980
and Baker v. Walston & Company, , it was held that a violation of subsection 2 of A.R.S.
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., , is hereby disapproved.
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
Baker v. Walston & Company, , states, without citation of authority, that “knowledge of falsity is not a necessary element of a cause of action based upon A.R.S.
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
102 , Baker v. Walston & Company, Inc.
Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas 570 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas 570 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Baker v. Walston & Company
Watts v. State 566 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Watts v. State 566 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See Baker v. Walston & Company, , where the original complaint alleged fraud in inducing the investor to purchase stock, and the amendment sought to add a claim that the stock had been sold through an unregistered salesman.
Barnes v. Vozack 550 P.2d 1070 Ariz. 1976
Barnes v. Vozack 550 P.2d 1070 Ariz. 1976
Rule 15(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., provides: “Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” Relying on Baker v. Watson & Company, P.2d 148 (1968), the Court of Appeals reasoned: “ * * * an amendment that depends on proof of a transaction different from and independent of the
State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Baker v. Walston & Company
Barnes v. Vozack 540 P.2d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Barnes v. Vozack 540 P.2d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
As Baker v. Walston & Company, P.2d 148 (1968) makes clear, however, an amendment that depends on proof of a transaction different from and independent of the transactions set forth in the original complaint will not relate back.
Green Reservoir Flood Control District v. Willmoth 489 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Green Reservoir Flood Control District v. Willmoth 489 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
See Baker v. Walston & Company
Neeriemer v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 477 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Neeriemer v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 477 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The first proposition, quoted from Baker v. Walston & Co., , is that “An amendment does not relate back if it sets forth ‘a wholly different legal liability or obligation.’ ” , which contains language to the effect that an amended complaint creating
Williams v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 476 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Williams v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 476 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Baker v. Walston & *351 Company, Inc.