DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cleveland v. McDonnell, 179 P.2d 238.

33 citing documents.

  • 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
    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, 4
  • 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
  • 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
    “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
    In Re McDonnell’s Estate
  • 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
    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
    In Re McDonnell’s Estate
  • 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
    “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
    In re McDonnell’s Estate, , In re Chandos, 18 Ariz.App.
  • Norville v. Palant 545 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    See, In re McDonnell’s Estate
  • 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
    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
    See In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , 128 P. 805 (1912).
  • 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
    In Re McDonnell’s Estate
  • Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband 426 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • 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
    In re McDonnell’s Estate
  • 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
    In re McDonnell’s Estate, , .
  • 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; Ko
  • Hassenpflug v. Jones 323 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1958
    In re McDonnell’s Estate, , .
  • Honk v. Karlsson 292 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1956
    * * * ” The test applicable to the sufficiency of evidence to establish fraud was further delineated in the case of In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , to wit: “Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence, and always the proof must be sufficient to overcome the initial presumption in favor of honesty.
  • Lane v. Mathews 245 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1952
    ritten agreement, either that (1) lessors were inexcusably negligent in failing to reread the lease before signing it; (2) that there was no inequitable conduct on the part of the lessee in not advising lessors of the changes, or (3) that there was negligence on the part of lessors and inequitable conduct on the part of lessee; but applying *206 the rule as enunciated in In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , that where there is a clear showing of fraud on the one hand and gross negligence upon the other
  • Funk v. Spalding 246 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1952
    In re McDonnell’s Estate, , .
  • Leigh v. Swartz 245 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1952
    They cite and rely upon the following quotation from In re McDonnell’s Estate, , , that a mere friendly relation is insufficient upon which to base a confidential relation: “ * * * a confidential relation * * * is a relation of parties in which one is bound to act for the benefit of the other and can take no advantage to himself from his acts relating to the interest of the other *
  • Brazee v. Morris 204 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1949
    In re McDonnell’s Estate, supra [ , ] * * , .
  • Morrison v. Acton 198 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1948
    Gillespie Land & , ; In Re McDonnell’s Estate, , ; , .
  • City of Phoenix v. Anderson 180 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1947