Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re McDonnell's Estate, 179 P.2d 238.

64 citing documents.

Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Servs., ¶ 11 , (quoting In re McDonnell’s Estate, -53 , ).
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See also In re McDonnell’s Estate, *108 , (difference between actual and constructive fraud is that former requires actual intent to deceive while other is characterized as breach of a duty actionable irrespective of moral guilt and arising out of a confidential relationship); , ¶ 35 and n. 6, , 999 and
Roberts v. Robert 158 P.3d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Roberts v. Robert 158 P.3d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, , (real estate of deceased person upon death changes in ownership by operation of law and becomes vested in hems subject to payment of debts of the estate, expense of administration, and allowance to family); In re McDonnell’s Estate, , (on death, title to real property immediately vests in heirs who may then convey their interest subject to ordinary processes of administration and rights of creditors); , (on death of husband, widow as only heir became immediately vested with title t
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 11 A fiduciary relationship has been described as ‘“something approximating business agency, professional relationship, or family tie impelling or inducing the trusting party to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise.’” In re McDonnell’s Estate, -53 , (quoting 37 C.J.S.
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
“Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence.” In re McDonnell’s Estate, , Fridenmaker v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Arizona, 23 Ariz.App.
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n 943 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n 943 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re McDonnell’s Estate
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Echols, 132 Ariz. at 500 , 647 P.2d at 631 , (quoting In re McDonnell’s Estate, , ) (“Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence.”).
Matter of Estate of Johnson 811 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Matter of Estate of Johnson 811 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appellant also cites In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , 264 P. 103 (1928) for the principle that title always vests immediately in the heirs upon the decedent’s death.
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 700 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 700 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
In Re McDonnell’s Estate
Rubenstein v. Sela 672 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Rubenstein v. Sela 672 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
provides: "Being a validly drawn and acknowledged deed and being duly delivered, we hold that want of consideration by itself is not enough to make it inoperative."
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc. 647 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1982
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc. 647 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1982
“Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence.” In re McDonnell’s Estate, , Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona, 23 Ariz.App.
Matter of Swartz 630 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1981
Matter of Swartz 630 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1981
In re McDonnell’s Estate, , In re Chandos, 18 Ariz.App.
Norville v. Palant 545 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Norville v. Palant 545 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
See, In re McDonnell’s Estate
Ranes v. First National Bank 504 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
In Re Guardianship of Chandos 504 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
In Re Guardianship of Chandos 504 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Ranes v. First National Bank 504 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
In re McDonnell’s Estate
Kwik-Teck, Inc. v. Esper 489 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1971
Kwik-Teck, Inc. v. Esper 489 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1971
Cullison v. Pride O’Texas Citrus Ass’n
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Robinson 483 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Robinson 483 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , 128 P. 805 (1912).
Klinger v. Hummel 464 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Klinger v. Hummel 464 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
342 , In re McDonnell’s Estate
Heller v. Levine 437 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Heller v. Levine 437 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In Re McDonnell’s Estate
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband 426 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
* * * ” In the Supreme Court’s decision In Re McDonnell’s Estate (Cleveland v. McDonnell) , we find the following statements: “ * * * the appellee was guilty of gross negligence in not reading this instrument before she signed it.
MacK v. Augustine 416 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
MacK v. Augustine 416 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In re McDonnell’s Estate
State v. Coerver 412 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1966
O'Donnell v. First National Bank 378 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1963
O'Donnell v. First National Bank 378 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1963
In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , 253 P. 626 (1927).
Cullison v. Pride O'Texas Citrus Association 355 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1960
Cullison v. Pride O'Texas Citrus Association 355 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1960
In re McDonnell’s Estate, , .
Sult v. Bolenbach 327 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1958
Sult v. Bolenbach 327 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1958
It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, , ; In re McDonnell’s Estate, , ; , ; , ; , ; and that it has certain necessary elements, , ; Rice v. Tissaw, supra; In re McDonnell’s Estate, supra; Koen v. Cavanagh
Hassenpflug v. Jones 323 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1958
Hassenpflug v. Jones 323 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1958
In re McDonnell’s Estate, , .