DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fernandez v. Garza, 354 P.2d 260.

46 citing documents.

  • Lehman v. Fussell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lehman v. Fussell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    see also Cook, 142 Ariz. at 578; –36 (1953).
  • Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    -22 , Ace Automotive Products
  • Sertich v. Moorman 783 P.2d 1199 Ariz. 1989
  • Sertich v. Moorman 783 P.2d 1199 Ariz. 1989
    132 , (where partnership agreement provided that upon dissolution the business was to be wound up, debts paid, and any surplus divided between the parties, a full accounting is required); , (partner’s action to recover share of partnership assets from deceased partner’s estate allowed despite lack of accounting and uncertain evidence of actual accumulation during existence of partnership); , (in dispute over partnership property
  • 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
  • Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
  • Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
    See also, , , , Tyranski v. Piggins, 44 Mich.App.
  • Matter of Estate of Levine 700 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Distinguished Matter of Estate of Levine 700 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    (claimant contended property was partnership property under a partnership agreement with decedent); Hanrahan v. Sims, 20 Ariz.App.
  • Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1984
  • Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1984
    this court stated: [I]t is the established law of the case that the fact that the parties engaged in a meretricious relationship does not bar either from asserting against the other such claims as would be otherwise enforceable.
  • Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    is inapposite here because the parties in Fernandez were business partners before they became lovers, thus validating the partnership treatment applied there.
  • Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    involving an action against an administratrix to recover property based on an alleged partnership agreement, the court reasoned that amending a judgment awarding plaintiff a sum of money from “property of said estate” to “property accumulated by the parties under the terms of the agreement” coul
  • Hanrahan v. Sims 512 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Hanrahan v. Sims 512 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    The non-claim statute does not apply to claims of equitable ownership of assets being administered, , Lecky v. Staley, 6 Ariz.App.
  • O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
  • O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
  • Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
  • Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
    and Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., supra.
  • Brown v. Brown 488 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Brown v. Brown 488 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Associates Finance Corporation v. Walters 470 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Associates Finance Corporation v. Walters 470 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Ray v. Rambaud 438 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1968
  • Ray v. Rambaud 438 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1968
    see also 1 Arizona Law Review 319 (1959).
  • Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    t for holding that no claim need be filed in probate is equally applicable to all of these relationships: “As to partnership assets in the hands of the administrator of a deceased partner, this court has followed the theory that they are trust funds and therefore not part of the assets of an estate; they are held not as part of the estate, but in trust for the surviving partner.” (Emphasis added) at 218 , at 263 .
  • Carrasco v. Carrasco 422 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Carrasco v. Carrasco 422 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that a managing partner is charged with making a true accounting, that his position is similar to a trustee’s, that a showing of exclusive control over the accounts shifts the burden of producing evidence, and that commingling of partnership and personal funds req
  • Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    see also 1 Arizona Law Review 319 (1959).
  • Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    see also 1 Arizona Law Review 319 (1959).
  • Harold Laz Advertising Company v. Dumes 407 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Harold Laz Advertising Company v. Dumes 407 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Fernandez v. Garza 380 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1963
  • Fernandez v. Garza 380 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1963
  • Smith v. Neely 380 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1963
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
  • Smith v. Neely 380 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1963
  • Kennedy v. Kennedy 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
    We do not find the evidence so overwhelmingly in favor of the husband that the findings of the trial court were unreasonable and cannot be sustained