Cited by

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

232 citing documents.

Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
A civil conspiracy is not actionable in Arizona, , but appellee’s complaint clearly alleged a § 46 claim.
Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Appellees argue this distinction is supported by prior Arizona cases which have described the type of affirmative conduct necessary to toll the limitations period, , (stating “[tjhere must be positive acts of concealment done to prevent detection ...
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
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
the Arizona Supreme Court stated, “[t]here is no such thing as a civil action for conspiracy.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 700 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 700 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See, e.g., Tovrea Land & , (statute of limitations runs from time aggrieved party should have discovered fraud in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence); Hadra v. Herman Blum Consulting Engineers, 632 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir.1980) cert.
Solar-West, Inc. v. Falk 687 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Solar-West, Inc. v. Falk 687 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc. 690 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc. 690 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cantlay & Tanzola, , Tovrea Land & , Dunlop v. Haybuster Mfg.
Coronado Development Corp. v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Coronado Development Corp. v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
They argue that Mr. Freedman "perpetuated the original lie and thereby concealed [their] cause of action for fraud," and cite Tovrea Land & , for the proposition that such positive acts of concealment to avoid detection will avoid the running of the statute.
Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 678 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 678 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
states the rule as to fraud actions: "[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."
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Watzek v. Walker, 14 Ariz.App.
Sun-Air Estates, Unit 1 v. Manzari 669 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Sun-Air Estates, Unit 1 v. Manzari 669 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 678 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 678 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
states the rule as to fraud actions: “[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.” 100 Ariz. at 130 , .
Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass'n 1, Inc. 656 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass'n 1, Inc. 656 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hansen v. Stoll 636 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hansen v. Stoll 636 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Perry v. Apache Junction Elementary School Dist.
Desruisseau v. Cameron 611 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Desruisseau v. Cameron 611 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Washington National Trust Co. v. W. M. Dary Co. 568 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1977
Washington National Trust Co. v. W. M. Dary Co. 568 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1977
it was held that a corporation could loan its surplus funds at less than the legal rate of interest to directors who dominated the corporation if .there was no showing that the funds could have been invested at a greater interest.
Walsh v. Eberlein 560 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Walsh v. Eberlein 560 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
King v. Coulter 550 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1976
King v. Coulter 550 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1976
Atkinson v. Marquart 541 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1975
Atkinson v. Marquart 541 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1975
Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Bryan v. United States, 99 F.2d 549 (10th Cir. 1938); International Union v. Wood, 337 Mich.
Hubbs v. Costello 528 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hubbs v. Costello 528 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Perry v. Apache Junction Elementary School District 43 Board of Trustees 514 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Perry v. Apache Junction Elementary School District 43 Board of Trustees 514 P.2d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Savard v. Selby 508 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Savard v. Selby 508 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Consolidated Tungsten Mines