Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix v. Milmoe, 248 P.2d 740.

35 citing documents.

Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc. 118 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc. 118 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Valley Nat’l -96 , , (stating that “[rjeservation by the asserted ‘principal’ of the right to control the transaction is essential to the existence of an agency relationship”); see also Restatement (Second) of Agency §
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
citing Valley Nat’l P.2d 740 (1952).
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
("Agency is the relationship which results from the manifestation by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and the consent by the other so to act.").
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(“Agency is the relationship which results from the manifestation by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and the consent by the other so to act.”).
McCallister Co. v. Kastella 825 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
McCallister Co. v. Kastella 825 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Restatement (Second) of Agency § 2 (1958)
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
38 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1180 (1980); Patrick v. Cochise Hotels, Inc.
Deming National Bank v. Walraven 651 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Deming National Bank v. Walraven 651 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
” 116 Ariz. at 493 , 570 P.2d at 180 .
Matter of Swartz 630 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1981
Matter of Swartz 630 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1981
843 (1979), and had fiduciary responsibilities to them as his principals, Valley Nat’l , 3 AmJur.
Best Fertilizers of Arizona, Inc. v. Burns 570 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1977
Best Fertilizers of Arizona, Inc. v. Burns 570 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1977
Warren v. Mangels Realty 533 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Warren v. Mangels Realty 533 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Marquess v. Spaner 488 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Marquess v. Spaner 488 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
for the proposition that an agency cannot be formed where the agent on account thereof will be compelled to assume inconsistent and incompatible duties in regard to a pre-existing agency.
Equitable Life & Casualty Insurance v. Rutledge 454 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Equitable Life & Casualty Insurance v. Rutledge 454 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Modern Pioneers Insurance Company v. Nandin 437 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1968
Modern Pioneers Insurance Company v. Nandin 437 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1968
* * * ” , Certainly Acoma, being wholly owned by MPI and MPL, fits the above description perfectly and could not be made Nandin’s agent, even by signing a brokerage contract to that effect.
Land-Air, Inc. v. Parker 435 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1967
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 430 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 430 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965