Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, 333 P.2d 286.

45 citing documents.

Calhoun v. Midfirst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Calhoun v. Midfirst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶15 A charging lien is not, however, inevitable: Its existence depends on the attorney and client’s intent to create such a lien, which further requires “that the parties looked to the fund itself for the payment of the attorney.” Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, Nat’l Sales & Serv.
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, (lien effective against assignee of client's judgment); ¶ 10 (App. 2001) (lien took priority over State's right to statutory setoffs for inmate costs).
State ex rel. Raber v. Hongliang Wang 286 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Raber v. Hongliang Wang 286 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
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, , Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , , , , , 224 P. 284 (1924); , Wallin v. Scottsdale Plumbi
Holly v. State 18 P.3d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Holly v. State 18 P.3d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 10 We find some guidance, however, in Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
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
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , , see A.R.S.
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
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville, & Beauchamp
Pearce v. Stone 720 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pearce v. Stone 720 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
National Sales & Service Co. v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1983
National Sales & Service Co. v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1983
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
Nitrini v. Feinbaum 501 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Nitrini v. Feinbaum 501 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , L. M. White Contracting, supra.
State Farm Mutual Insurance v. St. Joseph's Hospital 489 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1971
State Farm Mutual Insurance v. St. Joseph's Hospital 489 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1971
Mr. Hughes: That’s the heart of it.” Likewise, this case is different from and not bound by Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , which has been cited by the plaintiffs.
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , the Arizona Supreme Court expressed the following view-on constructive trusts: “Even where actual fraud does not exist in the acquisition of property, a constructive trust will arise whenever the circumstances make it inequitable that the property should be retained by the one who holds the lega
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
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
Mid-State Electric Supply Co. v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 464 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1970
Mid-State Electric Supply Co. v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 464 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1970
A and 12-1578; and Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
* * *’ Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville and Beauchamp, , * * * * * * % % % * * “ '* * * A court of equity in decreeing a constructive trust is bound by no unyielding formula.
Minderman v. Perry 437 P.2d 407 Ariz. 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
* * * The forms and varieties of these trusts are practically without limit and the principle is applied wherever it is necessary for the obtaining of complete justice.’ Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville and Beauchamp, 124 , .
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance 435 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance 435 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Even where actual fraud does not exist in the acquisition of property, a constructive trust will arise whenever the circumstances make it inequitable that the property should be retained by the one who holds the legal title.” Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. Lea 410 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. Lea 410 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
It is noted that there is an apparent conflict between this holding and the holding of the Arizona Supreme Court in Linder v. Lewis, et al., , which case would also appear to overrule the holding in Employers Casualty Co. v. Moore, supra.
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 410 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1966
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 410 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1966
* * The forms and varieties of these trusts are practically without limit and the principle is applied wherever it is necessary for the obtaining of complete justice.” Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville and Beauchamp, 124 , .
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
Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
In Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , we said: “The forms and varieties of these trusts are practically without limit and the principle is applied wherever it is necessary for the obtaining of complete justice.” 3 .
Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959