Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Lunt, 313 P.2d 393.

85 citing documents.

Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
JOSEPH E. TERBORG v. TOWN OF PAYSON Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
JOSEPH E. TERBORG v. TOWN OF PAYSON Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
see also Gfeller, 193 Ariz. at 54, ¶ 13 ("We will, if possible, interpret a contract in such a way as to reconcile and give meaning to all of its terms, if reconciliation can be accomplished by any reasonable interpretation.").
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(recognizing that a corporate fiction will be disregarded upon the concurrence of two circumstances: (1) when the corporation is, in fact, the alter ego of an individual or a few individuals, and (2) when the observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud or promote injustice)).
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cammon Consultants Corp. v. Day 889 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Cammon Consultants Corp. v. Day 889 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
In Employer’s , the court stated that a corporate fiction should be disregarded upon the concurrence of two circumstances: (1) when the corporation is, in fact, the alter ego of an individual or a few individuals (i.e., when they share an indivisible unity of interest); and, (2) when the observance of
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
206, 208 , (citing Employer’s , ).
Bryceland v. Northey 772 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bryceland v. Northey 772 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
See Employer’s , Berry v. Robotka, 9 Ariz.App.
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co. 705 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co. 705 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 661 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 661 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., , Employer’s , Malcoff v. Coyier, 14 Ariz.App.
Norton v. First Federal Savings 624 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1981
Norton v. First Federal Savings 624 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1981
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
A fraud claim can be based on a promise to perform future acts with a present intention not to perform, Employer’s , but the conclusory allegations are insufficient to show that appellant’s reliance was reasonable.
Custom Roofing Co. v. Transamerica Insurance 584 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Custom Roofing Co. v. Transamerica Insurance 584 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See Employer’s , Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Fluor Corp., 4 Ariz.App.
Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Romley 578 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Romley 578 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Kamrath v. Great Southwestern Trust Corp. 551 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Kamrath v. Great Southwestern Trust Corp. 551 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
: “The corporate fiction will, however, be disregarded upon the concurrence of two circumstances; that is, when the corporation is, in fact, the alter ego of one or a few individuals and when the observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.
Cavanagh v. Schaefer 545 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1976
Cavanagh v. Schaefer 545 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1976
“[T]he court must ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties as of the time the contract was made if at all possible.” Employer’s
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Employer’s , *306 Ferrarell v. Robinson, 11 Ariz.App.
Butler v. American Asphalt & Contracting Co. 540 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Butler v. American Asphalt & Contracting Co. 540 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Polk v. Koerner 533 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1975
Polk v. Koerner 533 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1975
Norman v. Del Elia 533 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1975
Norman v. Del Elia 533 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1975
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
We said in Employer’s -325 , : “In this jurisdiction it is settled that a fraud may be perpetrated by the giving of a promise to perform a future act made with the present intention not to perform.
Farmers Investment Co. v. Pima Mining Co. 523 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1974
Farmers Investment Co. v. Pima Mining Co. 523 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1974
1003 (1877), and the character of a contract must be determined by its provisions rather than its label, Employer’s