Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Honk v. Karlsson, 292 P.2d 455.

26 citing documents.

Garcia v. Ison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Garcia v. Ison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Worcester, 192 Ariz. at 26, ¶ 6; ¶ 17 (App. 2020); see also, e.g., Dockery, 45 Ariz. at 451 (relief for “fraud or deception practiced on the unsuccessful party”); (relief when “the defrauded person” has been excluded from the proceeding); McNeil, 236 Ariz. at 176–77, ¶ 14 (relief for fraud that “has prevented the unsuccessful party from having a fair submission”) (citation omitted).
Accord Trucking, Inc. v. Fedex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Accord Trucking, Inc. v. Fedex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
But some evidence on which that inference is based is still required; fraud is never presumed, and requires more than “doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence.” (quotation omitted).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
165, 168 , ( , ), may justify vacating a prior judgment.
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(defining extrinsic fraud as that by which “the defrauded person has thereby been prevented from learning of the proeeeding or asserting his claim therein”); Dockery, 45 Ariz. at 451 , 45 P.2d at 663 (recognizing that fraud must be extrinsic or collateral to give jurisdiction to a court
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
P.2d 786 (1955) (action sought to establish constructive trust as to one-half interest in realty); , (equitable action brought to impress constructive trust on property); , (action filed to impose constructive trust on real estate).
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 493 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1972
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 493 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1972
* * *’ (Emphasis supplied.)” at 33 , at 457 (1956).
In Re the Estate of Milliman 415 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1966
In Re the Estate of Milliman 415 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1966
In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Dockery v. Central Arizona L. & P. Co.
Bates v. Bates 400 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Bates v. Bates 400 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Dunahay v. Struzik 393 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1964
Dunahay v. Struzik 393 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1964
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; , ; , , one being that the complaining party must rely up
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
By a' supplemental brief plaintiffs place great reliance upon our recent deci *24 , .