Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morrison v. Acton, 198 P.2d 590.

42 citing documents.

Michelle Sampson v. Surgery Center Ariz. 2021
Michelle Sampson v. Surgery Center Ariz. 2021
Kopacz v. Banner Health 425 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kopacz v. Banner Health 425 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
at 315, ¶¶ 18-20 ( 34-36 (1948) (cause of action did not accrue when patient felt prolonged jaw pain after tooth extraction but dentist had concealed fact that he had left a broken piece of a metal surgical instrument embedded in patient's jaw)).
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
¶19 The second time that case came to this court, we held that a patient was not barred from bringing an action against his dentist because the patient “should [not] be penalized for failing for even this long period of time to discover the true seat of his troubles.” Morrison v. Acton, 68 Ariz. 7 27, 36
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Lasley v. Helms 880 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Helms 880 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
829 P.2d *592 1253, 1260 (App.1992).
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C. 816 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Tullar v. Walter L. Henderson, P.C. 816 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
In both Morrison [v. Acton, , ] and Nielson [v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co., 15 Ariz.App.
Estate of Kirschenbaum v. Kirschenbaum 793 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Estate of Kirschenbaum v. Kirschenbaum 793 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Accord To-vrea, supra; , Walker v. Walker, 18 Ariz.App.
Trede v. FAMILY DENTAL CENTER 708 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Trede v. FAMILY DENTAL CENTER 708 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
a dentist concealed the fact that he had broken an instrument in plaintiff’s mouth, and the piece remained in his jaw for nearly seven years until he saw another dentist.
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1983
in which this Court stated that “Arizona has long followed the rule that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct, , Nielson v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co., 15 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.
Russo v. Diethrich 617 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Russo v. Diethrich 617 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sato v. Van Denburgh 599 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1979
Sato v. Van Denburgh 599 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1979
Arizona has long followed the rule that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct, , Nielson v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co., 15 Ariz.App.
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
State of Michigan v. First National Bank of Arizona 495 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State of Michigan v. First National Bank of Arizona 495 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Mayer v. Good Samaritan Hospital 482 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mayer v. Good Samaritan Hospital 482 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The •second appeal in Acton, , also :speaks in terms of tolling the statute of limitations.
Drug, Cosmetic & Beauty Trades Service, Inc. v. McFate 480 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Drug, Cosmetic & Beauty Trades Service, Inc. v. McFate 480 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
From the standpoint of legal authority, , subsequent appeal, , where a known party fraudulently concealed his own prior negligent conduct.
Rodriquez v. Manoil 450 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodriquez v. Manoil 450 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
This court, however, adopted a rule which we believe is far more consonant with justice in the decision rendered oh the first appeal of this case, Acton v. Morrison, supra, wherein plaintiff’s allegations of fraud and concealment were held sufficient to toll the running of the statute until the date of discovery of the fraudulent conduct.” 34
Mageary v. Hoyt 369 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1962
Mageary v. Hoyt 369 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1962
This court has held that a dentist was liable for the failure to inform his patient of matters having an important bearing on the patient’s health where the dentist knew or ought to have known of such matters
Leigh v. Loyd 244 P.2d 356 Ariz. 1952
Leigh v. Loyd 244 P.2d 356 Ariz. 1952
37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 16, p. 244; , .
Brazee v. Morris 204 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1949
Brazee v. Morris 204 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1949
In re McDonnell’s Estate, supra [ , ] * * , .
Nichols v. City of Phoenix 202 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1949
Nichols v. City of Phoenix 202 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1949
It is to be determined as a fact, in view of the circumstances of fact attending it.’ ” , 190 P. 573, 576 ; , ; 38 Am.Jur., Negligence, sections 351, 352.