Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Torosian v. Paulos, 313 P.2d 382.

38 citing documents.

Demand v. Minderman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Demand v. Minderman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
When, however, several are found in the same transaction, strong, clear evidence will be required to repel the conclusion of fraudulent intent.” Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 17 ¶ 34 ().
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Powers Reinforcing Fabricators, ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (Consolidation does not “make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” ()).
Powers v. Hon contes/quinlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Powers v. Hon contes/quinlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” (quoting Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶23 Taken together, the statutory factors have “a tendency to show the existence of fraud” and often only “a single one of them may establish and stamp a transaction as fraudulent.” ¶ 34 (App. 1998) (discussing the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, the predecessor to the UFTA) ().
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Distinguished White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, , , Dunseath v. Tucson Golf & Country Club, , Greene v. Reed, 15 Ariz.App.
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Premier Financial Services. v. Citibank 912 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Premier Financial Services. v. Citibank 912 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
several are found in the same transaction, strong, clear evidence will be required to repel the conclusion of fraudulent intent.’ ” , (quoting Humbird v. Arnet, 99 Mont.
In Re Marriage of Benge 726 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
In Re Marriage of Benge 726 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
90, 97 , (discussing “badges of fraud” from which actual interest can be found); , In Re D.H.
Associated Grocers v. Industrial Commission 616 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Associated Grocers v. Industrial Commission 616 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
modified, , Yavapai County v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.App.
Wallin v. SCOTTSDALE PLUMBING COMPANY, INC. 557 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Wallin v. SCOTTSDALE PLUMBING COMPANY, INC. 557 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Under these circumstances, there were sufficient “badges of fraud”, , , modified, , to allow the trial court to conclude that Evans had an actual intent to “hinder, delay or defraud” creditors by the transfer of the property to his sister.
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Diamond Lazy K Guest Ranch, Inc. 501 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Diamond Lazy K Guest Ranch, Inc. 501 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Packer v. Donaldson 492 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Packer v. Donaldson 492 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
modified, , Cashion Gin Co. v. Kulikov, 1 Ariz.App.
Yavapai County v. Superior Court 476 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Yavapai County v. Superior Court 476 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wineglass Ranches, Inc. v. Campbell 473 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wineglass Ranches, Inc. v. Campbell 473 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Saiz 447 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1968
State v. Saiz 447 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1968
219 P. 226 (1923); , People v. Smith, 25 Ill.2d 219 , 184 N.E.2d 841 (1962).
Williams v. Long 402 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Williams v. Long 402 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Cashion Gin Company v. Kulikov 399 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Cashion Gin Company v. Kulikov 399 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
References are found in the following cases: , 224 P. 284 (1924); , and Linder.
Torosian v. Paulos 313 P.2d 1120 Ariz. 1957
Torosian v. Paulos 313 P.2d 1120 Ariz. 1957
Motions for rehearing in the above-entitled consolidated causes were timely filed by Edward Torosian, intervenor-appellant, and Rillito Race Track, Inc., garnishee-appellant, from the decision rendered June 25, 1957, reported in , .