Cited by

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

85 citing documents.

Ruhsam v. Ruhsam 518 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1974
Ruhsam v. Ruhsam 518 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1974
Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., , , supra; , Employer’s
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Gardner v. Royal Development Company 465 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Gardner v. Royal Development Company 465 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
He cites Employer’s , as authority for the proposition that the corporate fiction will be disregarded upon the concurrence .of two circumstances: First, when the .corporation is, in fact, the alter ego of one or a few individuals, and Second, when the observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud or promote
Ferrarell v. Robinson 465 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ferrarell v. Robinson 465 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Badley v. Towle 451 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Badley v. Towle 451 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp. 442 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1968
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp. 442 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1968
They cite Employer’s , , and Jamison v. Franklin Life Insurance Co., 60 * P.2d 265 , as holding that if there is a conflict between the recital and the operative clauses of a bond, the latter will prevail.
State v. Spence 439 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1968
State v. Spence 439 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1968
Modern Pioneers Insurance Company v. Nandin 437 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1968
Modern Pioneers Insurance Company v. Nandin 437 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1968
In Employer’s , , we said: “ * * * That a few individuals own the stock of the corporation or control its actions does not mean necessarily that the debts of the corporation should be imposed upon them personally, * * * * * * * * * “The corporate fiction will, however, be disregarded upon the concurrence of two circums
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
With a fiduciary duty present, as here, we have no hesitancy in holding that Blackstone Investment Company was the alter ego of Nutter, Employer’s , so that the sale to that corporation sufficiently satisfied the sharing agreement between these brokers.
Kintner v. Wolfe 426 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1967
Kintner v. Wolfe 426 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1967
The following legal principles must be applied in determining the intent of the parties in making the agreement: “The nature of an instrument is determined by the effect the law gives to its terms and not by the title by which the parties have designated the instrument.” , ; Employer’s , .
Kintner v. Wolfe 419 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Kintner v. Wolfe 419 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Employer’s , Restatement, Contracts, § 236, p. 327.
LeBaron v. Crismon 412 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1966
LeBaron v. Crismon 412 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1966
Sanitary District No. 1 of Pima County v. State Ex Rel. Willey 399 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sanitary District No. 1 of Pima County v. State Ex Rel. Willey 399 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
Caldwell v. Tilford 367 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1961
Caldwell v. Tilford 367 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1961
Employer’s Liability Assurance Corporation v. Heaton Lunt & Son
Ashton v. Ashton 359 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1961
Ashton v. Ashton 359 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1961
Employer’s Liability Assurance Corporation v. Heaton Lunt & Co., , ; , .