Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite West v. Soto, 336 P.2d 153.

44 citing documents.

Mattly v. brown/focus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mattly v. brown/focus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–96 (1943) (sharing of profits is necessary to create joint venture).
Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bd., (citing the Restatement (Second) P.2d 153 (1959), there must be “a duty owed and a breach of that duty before one may be charged with the negligent violation of that duty.”).
Estate of Hernandez v. Flavio 930 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1997
Estate of Hernandez v. Flavio 930 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1997
Hafner v. Beck 916 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Hafner v. Beck 916 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
See, , (“There must be a duty owed and a breach of that duty before one may be charged with a negligent violation of that duty.”); Rudolph v. Arizona B.AS.S.
Cothrun v. Schwartz 752 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Cothrun v. Schwartz 752 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc. 729 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Jolly v. Kent Realty, Inc. 729 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ellingson v. Sloan, 22 Ariz.App.
Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 699 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 699 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 640 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Garcia v. City of South Tucson 640 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Elements of a , and are as follows: (1) a contract; (2) a common purpose; (3) a community of interest; and (4) an equal right of control.
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Roy H. Long Realty Company, Inc. v. Vanderkolk 547 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Roy H. Long Realty Company, Inc. v. Vanderkolk 547 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Van Buren v. Pima Community College District Board 546 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1976
Van Buren v. Pima Community College District Board 546 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1976
Thus, there must be “a duty owed and a breach of that duty before one may be charged with the negligent violation of that duty.”
Ellingson v. Sloan 527 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Ellingson v. Sloan 527 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen 517 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen 517 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
involves a third-party tort claim and the question was whether West, a co-defendant and passenger in the car, was liable to the injured party as a joint ven-turer.
Helfenbein v. BARAE INVESTMENT CO., INC. 508 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Helfenbein v. BARAE INVESTMENT CO., INC. 508 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Transit Equipment Co. v. Dyonisio, 154 Colo.
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. St. Joseph Structural Steel Co. 488 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. St. Joseph Structural Steel Co. 488 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
the elements of a joint venture were set forth.
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
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
“There must be a duty owed and a breach of that duty before one may be charged with the negligent violation of that duty.”
Tafoya v. Trisler 445 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Tafoya v. Trisler 445 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
It follows that each of the others is likewise a principal so that the act of one is the act of all.”
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
866 (1941); Salt River Valley W. U. Ass’n v. Compton
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
this Court stated that, to constitute a joint venture or enterprise, each of the parties must have “ * * * authority to act for all in respect to the control of the means or agencies employed to execute such common purpose.’ *360 In the past some courts have held that if one party to a joint
Mercer v. Vinson 336 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1959
Mercer v. Vinson 336 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1959
We have pointed out before, and have recently stressed in West v. Soto, 85 Ariz. -, , the elements of a joint adventure, and stated that it is in the nature of a partnership; that each of the parties thereto is the agent of the other and each is the principal, so that the act of one is the act of all.