Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Pinner, 201 P.2d 741.

30 citing documents.

Summit v. Rees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summit v. Rees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citations omitted); (addressing Arizona common law fraud claim using this same standard).
Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett 265 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2011
Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett 265 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2011
Marshall v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 641 P.2d 867 Ariz. 1982
Marshall v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 641 P.2d 867 Ariz. 1982
this Court held that where an original complaint had asserted a cause of action based on contract, an amended complaint seeking tort damages in addition to the contract damages created a new cause of action which would not relate back to the time of original filing and which was barred
Adams v. Dion 509 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1973
Adams v. Dion 509 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1973
In Arizona the rule has never been adjudicated, although in three cases it has been assumed that the common law rule prevailed: , , Reese v. Cradit, 12 Ariz.App.
Adams v. Dion 504 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Adams v. Dion 504 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Three cases in Arizona have touched on this problem: Fagerberg v. Phoenix Flour Mills Co., supra; , and Reese v. Cradit, 12 Ariz.App.
Neeriemer v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 477 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Neeriemer v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 477 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
590, 594 , is that “An amendment does not relate back if it sets forth ‘a wholly different legal liability or obligation.’ ” , which contains language to the effect that an amended complaint creating a “new cause of action” will not relate back.
Gardner v. Royal Development Company 465 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Gardner v. Royal Development Company 465 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fraud is never presumed and cannot be found on a mere suspicion as a possibility thereof; , ; , Kosak v. Mabb, 10 Ariz.App.
Kosak v. Mabb 459 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kosak v. Mabb 459 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects 409 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects 409 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
94 P. 1094 (1908); , , Zancanaro v. Cross Plumbing & Heating Co.
Higgins v. Kittleson 401 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Higgins v. Kittleson 401 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Holaway v. Realty Associates 367 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1961
Holaway v. Realty Associates 367 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1961
* * * ’ , ; , ; 24 Am.Jur.
Poley v. Bender 347 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1959
Poley v. Bender 347 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1959
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; , ; W
Goocher v. Maas 259 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1953
Goocher v. Maas 259 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1953
He has cited many cases, among them: , ; , ; , ; but none of these are in point as all of these cases pertain to fraud and fraudulent transactions.
Brazee v. Morris 204 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1949
Brazee v. Morris 204 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1949
* * *” , ; , ; 24 Am.Jur.