Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murillo v. Hernandez, 281 P.2d 786.

113 citing documents.

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
(partner and illiterate partner); , (broker and client); , (family relationship); , (real estate agent and principal); , (real estate broker and principal).
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
P.2d 786 (1955); Brown v. Karas, [ , ]; P.2d 928 (1968) [Footnote omitted].
Matter of Estate of Coffin 671 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Matter of Estate of Coffin 671 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Brown v. Karas [ , ], supra
Stevenson v. Stevenson 643 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1982
Stevenson v. Stevenson 643 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1982
Stoltz v. Maloney 630 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Stoltz v. Maloney 630 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Murillo v. Hernandez, 79 Ariz; 1, , Cachenos v. Baumann, 25 Ariz.App.
Groth v. Martel 612 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Groth v. Martel 612 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Matter of Weiner 586 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1978
Matter of Weiner 586 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1978
In the same vein is a quotation from 54 Am.Jur., Trusts § 621
Hopper v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Hopper v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Brown v. Karas, supra ; , 1 Even where the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is imposed as a guide for the trier of fact, questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to the testimo
Chirekos v. Chirekos 537 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Chirekos v. Chirekos 537 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Nitrini v. Feinbaum 501 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Nitrini v. Feinbaum 501 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
L. M. White, supra; , 281 A constructive trust has been de-fined as .
O'Hair v. O'Hair 494 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O'Hair v. O'Hair 494 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See, Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc.
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 493 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1972
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 493 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1972
In re Slater’s Estate, 6 Ariz.App.
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Quila v. Estate of Schafer 438 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Quila v. Estate of Schafer 438 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
Rogers v. House 435 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Rogers v. House 435 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Moore v. Holbrook 433 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Moore v. Holbrook 433 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Laurence 429 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Consolidated Credit Corp. v. Laurence 429 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
ve based a decision in favor of the defendants, but, in view of what we have herein stated, there seems no necessity to burden this opinion with a recital of such testimony: “Our duty, on appeal, begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence upon which an unprejudiced mind might reasonably have reached the same conclusion which was reached.” , Almada v. Ruelas, supra.
Almada v. Ruelas 393 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1964
Almada v. Ruelas 393 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1964
790 , we said: “ * * * when a confidential relationship is shown to exist between two parties, even though no active fraud by the grantee in the procuring of a conveyance be shown, the mere existence of such confidential relation, when coupled with a promise to reconvey, creates a constructive
Washington National Insurance v. Dale Benz, Inc. 382 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1963
Washington National Insurance v. Dale Benz, Inc. 382 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1963
Review of evidence by this court to determine whether it meets the standard “clear and convincing” is limited to testing the inherent reasonableness of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the findings of the trial court
Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
by the one who holds the legal title.” Then with regard to such a trust being imposed on land we said: “ * * * Although the statute of fraud prohibits the enforcement of an express parol trust in lands, , , it has no application to constructive trusts which arise by operation of law and not by agreement.” 3 , that when a confidential relationship exists between two parties even though no active *371 fraud exists other circumstances will give rise to an implied fraud.
Recictenwald v. Lockard 368 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1962
In Re Lamfrom's Estate 368 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1962