Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 604.

37 citing documents.

Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(stating federal law is persuasive in procedural matters).
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
That federal securities laws specify a different remedy than that provided for under Arizona law gives us “good reason to depart from that authority.” ¶ 18 , (noting federal law is persuasive in interpretation of Arizona securities laws only where provisions and underlying policies are similar) (citing State v. Gunni *467 son, -13 , ).
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
State v. Superior Court (Davis), 123 Ariz. 324, P.2d 604 (1980).
Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
§ 77q.” State v. Superior Court (Davis), P.2d 604 (1980).
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
991(A) is all that is necessary to bring an action for rescission pursuant to § 44-2001(A) based upon aiding and abetting liability and argues “[t]here is no requirement that the primary violator fall within [§ ] 44-2003(A).” 9 ¶ 25 In support of its argument
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
ll that is necessary to bring an action for rescission pursuant to § 44-2001(A) based upon aiding and abetting liability and argues “[t]here is no requirement that the primary violator fall within [§] 44-2003(A).” 9 ¶25 In support of its argument, the Trust relies on State v. Superior Court, 123 Ariz. 324, overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gunnison, 127 Ariz. 110
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Carrington v. Arizona Corp. Commission 18 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Carrington v. Arizona Corp. Commission 18 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
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 State v. Superior Ct. (Davis)
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
overruled in part, , as “binding Supreme Court precedent” for its position.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
DeJonghe v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc. 830 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
DeJonghe v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc. 830 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See, , , overruled on other grounds, , (Arizona Corporation Commission’s statutory power to regulate thrift companies created duty to protect thrift company depositors); Bischofshausen v. Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District, supra (implicit holding that Control District’s statutory duty to control and regulate activities
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
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
(Holohan, J. specially concurring).
State v. Newman 688 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Newman 688 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1984
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
On the other hand, , overruled on other grounds
State v. Tarzian 665 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Tarzian 665 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Rule 10b-5 , , and was specifically rejected therein.
Rose v. Dobras 624 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rose v. Dobras 624 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981