Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brazee v. Morris, 204 P.2d 475.

30 citing documents.

Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 98, n. 24, n. 24 (2002) (citations omitted) (fraudulent *469 concealment); 5 -28 , -77 (1949) (constructive fraud); , (undue influence).
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
See, -29 , -78 (1949); Rhoads v. Harvey Pubs., Inc., , 148 — 49, -47 (App. 1984).
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
See, -29 , -78 (1949); Rhoads v. Harvey Pubs., Inc., -49 , -47 (App.1984).
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
358 , , wherein our supreme court said, From the record we can say as a matter of law that no confidential relationship can be found to have existed between the parties.
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
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In Re Estate of Harber 428 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
In Re Estate of Harber 428 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
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
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
Relevant to issue No. 2 , , 476: *293 “This court has repeatedly held that when fraud is relied upon, either in the complaint or the answer, it must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence.
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; , ; , , on
Kahl v. Winfrey 303 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1956
Kahl v. Winfrey 303 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1956
Honk v. Karlsson 292 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1956
Honk v. Karlsson 292 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1956
we spelled out the difference between actual and constructive fraud, and the' quantum of proof necessary to establish each type.