Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carrel v. Lux, 420 P.2d 564.

75 citing documents.

Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Actions for fraud and negligent misrepresentation permit the plaintiff to recover for “the difference between the real value of the property purchased and the value it would have had had the representation been true.” (citing Lutfy v. R. D. Roper & Sons Motor Co., ); ¶ 24 (App. 2018); Aspen Biotech Corp. v. Wakefield, 1 CA-CV 20-0384, 2021 WL 3503399, at *14 ¶ 70 (Ariz. App. Aug.
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating that determining expert witness competency is in the sound discretion of the trial court) (citation omitted).
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC 381 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC 381 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that a real estate broker may be liable for salespersons’ misrepresentations as to property’s size).
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Griffith v. Faltz 785 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Griffith v. Faltz 785 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal. 739 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1987
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal. 739 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1987
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. 739 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. 739 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Restatement (Second) of Agency § 257 (1957).
Marcus v. Fox 723 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Marcus v. Fox 723 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department 688 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department 688 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
477 , , , that cases allowing recovery against brokers for the misstatements of their salesmen share the following four elements in common: 1) The broker had a listing and presumably received a commission; 2) The salesman represented the seller and not the buyer; 3) The agreement for sale was consummated
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1982
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1982
Mammas v. Oro Valley Townhouses, Inc. 638 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Mammas v. Oro Valley Townhouses, Inc. 638 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Davis v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona 605 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Davis v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona 605 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Accord, e. g., , , Denbo v. Badger, 18 Ariz.App.
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
: “ ‘(1) A representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; (9) his consequent and proximate injury.’ ” , , 338—39, -18 (1966).
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Smith v. John C. Lincoln Hospital 578 P.2d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Smith v. John C. Lincoln Hospital 578 P.2d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Distinguished Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Instead, the defendant argues that the elements of intent to induce reliance, knowledge of the falsity of the representations and damages should have been inferred solely from the conduct of the plaintiff’s agent
State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
W. R. Skousen Contractor, Inc. v. Gray 546 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
W. R. Skousen Contractor, Inc. v. Gray 546 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Board of Regents of University
Barnes v. Lopez 544 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Barnes v. Lopez 544 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Reese v. Cradit, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Owens 540 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1975
State v. Owens 540 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1975
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975