Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ulan v. Richtars, 446 P.2d 255.

42 citing documents.

Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lufty, 57 Ariz. at 498–503 (when the car model year was misrepresented, the measure of damages was the value of the difference between model years on the date of the sale); n.5 (1968); 37 Am.
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
20 (“A defrauded party is entitled to all out-of-pocket losses[,] .
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
485 (App. 1980) (addressing a claim to rescind a real estate contract on the basis of fraudulent concealment of a material defect); P.2d 531 (1972) (addressing formation of a real estate contract); P.2d 255 (1968) (addressing a claim sounding in tort resulting from a real estate transaction).
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
We have expressly held that there is no need to define the terms “clear and convincing.”
Marcus v. Fox 723 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Marcus v. Fox 723 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Transamerica Insurance v. Trout 701 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Transamerica Insurance v. Trout 701 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
The authority Trout relies on, , is merely one wherein a particular claim for damages for fraud was unliquidated.
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Mammas v. Oro Valley Townhouses, Inc. 638 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Mammas v. Oro Valley Townhouses, Inc. 638 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
and Annotation 13 A.L.R.3d 875 (1967)
Shell Oil Co. v. Gutierrez 581 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Shell Oil Co. v. Gutierrez 581 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Mustang Equipment, Inc. v. Welch 564 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1977
Mustang Equipment, Inc. v. Welch 564 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1977
483 , aff’d in part, rev’d in part
Woods v. Harker 523 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Woods v. Harker 523 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Purcell v. Zimbelman 500 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Purcell v. Zimbelman 500 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City of Tucson v. Gallagher 483 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Tucson v. Gallagher 483 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 484 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 484 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
268 P. 181, 184 (1928) ; , ; Cole v. Gerhart, 5 Ariz.App.
Aritex Land Company v. Baker 482 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Aritex Land Company v. Baker 482 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
The trial court has broad discretion in this respect, , and we see no abuse thereof in the case at bench.
Pelayo v. Bell 477 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Pelayo v. Bell 477 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Reese v. Cradit 469 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Reese v. Cradit 469 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Page Investment Company v. Staley 468 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1970
Page Investment Company v. Staley 468 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1970
n. 4 , Holland v. Lentz, 239 Or.
Zelman v. Stauder 466 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Zelman v. Stauder 466 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970