Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer, 412 P.2d 47.

232 citing documents.

JARVIS v. ASSA ABLOY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
JARVIS v. ASSA ABLOY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(holding that the appellate court is not bound by the conclusions of law made by the superior court); ¶ 3 (App. 2013) (holding that subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo).
Servin v. state/quezada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Servin v. state/quezada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Tovrea Land & 2 A. Effective Date of Modification ¶12 Father seems to argue the court selected the wrong date for when his modification was effective.
Horton v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Horton v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 32 (1998); Tovrea Land &
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
If there is no such duty, the director may acquire outside interests although the corporation may be more or less interested.” Tovrea Land & (citations omitted); -62 (1909), modified by 225 U.S. 445 (1912) (holding that, for a duty to exist, a corporation must have “an interest, actual or in expectancy, in the property” or show an officer or director’s actions “hinder or defeat the plans and pu
Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tovrea Land & -62 (1909) (holding that corporation must have "an interest, actual or in expectancy, in the property" to prevent acquisition by officer or director), modified, 225 U.S. 445 (1912).
Samra v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Samra v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wilson v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wilson v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Moreover, the court’s holding in Walk is supported by decades of similar holdings.4 Thus, we apply the same standard here in 4 See, e.g., Tovrea Land & (“This court has held that no matter what the form of action, if it is based upon fraudulent concealment by one occupying a fiduciary relationship or position of trust to the complaining party, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until that party discovers or is put upon reasonable notice of t
Turley v. Beus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Turley v. Beus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 14, ¶ 19 ( and Tovrea Land & ).
Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Tovrea Land & (“[T]he statute of limitations runs from the time the aggrieved party should have discovered the fraud in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence.”).
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Taser International, Inc. v. Ward 231 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Taser International, Inc. v. Ward 231 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
C. Corporate Opportunity ¶ 33 The' corporate opportunity doctrine “prohibits fiduciary usurpation of a corporate opportunity.” , Tovrea Land & , (searching the record to determine whether the defendant “wrongfully deprived” the plaintiff of a business opportunity).
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Tovrea Land & (“[I]f the facts are undisputed, we may ignore the trial court’s findings and substitute our own analysis of the record.”); see also Gen.
Gorman v. State ex rel. Owens 155 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gorman v. State ex rel. Owens 155 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Tovrea Land & , -52 (1966).
Northern Trust Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Goodman 23 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Northern Trust Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Goodman 23 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Tovrea Land & , In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 5
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 969 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 969 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe 965 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1998
Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe 965 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1998
Tovrea Land & , -52 (1966).
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
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00 973 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00 973 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tovrea Land & , In re $315,900.00 in United States Currency
State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Reed v. Mitchell & Timba=nard, P.C., , (citing Tovrea Land & , ).
Smithey v. Hansberger 938 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Smithey v. Hansberger 938 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Grisham v. Five Star Insurance 925 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Grisham v. Five Star Insurance 925 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Linch v. THOMAS-DAVIS MED. CENTERS PC 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Linch v. THOMAS-DAVIS MED. CENTERS PC 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996