Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., 410 P.2d 662.

27 citing documents.

Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., (citation omitted).
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1985
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1985
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.
Tucson Estate Residents Ass'n v. Mobilife Corp. 546 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Tucson Estate Residents Ass'n v. Mobilife Corp. 546 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.
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
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
In Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Company, , cited by plaintiffs, no findings of fact were made as required by Rule 41(b) and it was therefore required that the evidence be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
See Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , and authorities cited therein.
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , .
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
In accordance with previous holdings on this subject, in the recent case of Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , , this court said: “A constructive trust expresses the idea that a defendant is under an equitable duty to give the complainant the benefit of property held.
Cordoba v. Wiswall 436 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Cordoba v. Wiswall 436 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
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
reversed and remanded the cause for new trial stating: “We believe the facts in this case brought out at trial create a prima facie case of constructive fraud, (citations omitted) .
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Summarizing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , we find that Ed Hallmark, purporting to be agent for the defendant (Logan Drilling Company), began negotiations with plaintiff (O. S. Stapley Company) to lease some heavy equipment, with an option to buy.
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Markel v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , .