Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Walston & Co. v. Miller, 410 P.2d 658.

19 citing documents.

Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 39 A real estate broker “occupied] a confidential and fiduciary relationship with the [client] and thereby [is] held to the highest ethical standards of fairness and honesty.” -02 , -02 (App.1977); see also, , Walston & , -61 (1966)
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, e.g., Walston & -53 , (describing relationship between customer and broker in margin transactions).
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
982), “does not represent an extension of tort liability upon an agent[;] it results from an exposition of the pre-existing duty of care owed a principal by his agent.” , (agent’s duty to make full disclosure to principal of all material facts relevant to agency is fundamental to fiduciary relation); Walston & , Restatement (Second) of Agency § 381 (1957), states the duty thusly: Unless otherwise agreed, an agent is subject to a duty to use reasonable efforts to give his principal informatio
Musselman v. Southwinds Realty, Inc. 704 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Musselman v. Southwinds Realty, Inc. 704 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In Walston & , our supreme court con *177 sidered the duty of a commodity broker to his customer.
Keller v. Superior Court in & for Cty. of Maricopa 524 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
This same principle- has been applied or recognized in several subsequent decisions, , , , Brooks v. State, supra; Rodgers v. State, 5 Ariz.App.
State v. Jackson 494 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
and Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S.Ct.
Gantt v. Eyman 475 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1970
Jennings v. Lee 461 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1969
Jennings v. Lee 461 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1969
State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Johnson v. State, 4 Ariz.App.
State v. Lindsay 428 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Rodgers v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 427 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
However, expiration of the probation period before resentencing would have required appellant’s discharge
In MATTER OF McGILBRY 425 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
There is authority to the effect that a person may not be re-sentenced under the circumstances of this case, , and that the petitioner may be discharged on an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Johnson v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 420 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Leonard v. State 415 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1966