DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

75 citing documents.

  • Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    Reese v. Cradit, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Melot 502 P.2d 1346 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Melot 502 P.2d 1346 Ariz. 1972
  • Delta Corp. of America v. Western Coach Corp. 484 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Delta Corp. of America v. Western Coach Corp. 484 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    City of *147 Phoenix v. Schroeder, 1 Ariz.App.
  • Reese v. Cradit 469 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Reese v. Cradit 469 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    the court said: “It is our opinion that where a real estate salesman, who has a motive of monetary gain through receipt of a substantial commission, makes a statement to a proposed buyer describing the property to be sold, such would support a finding by the jury that the person making the statem
  • Town & Country Chrysler Plymouth v. Porter 464 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Town & Country Chrysler Plymouth v. Porter 464 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    The plaintiff certainly had a right to rely on the mileage representation, , and where, as here, the representor has a motive of monetary gain, the jury would be justified in finding an intent that the purchaser rely upon the representation.
  • Klinger v. Hummel 464 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Klinger v. Hummel 464 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that a shortage in acreage of approximately one-third was so great of a deficiency as to raise a presumption of fraud.
  • Jennings v. Lee 461 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1969
  • Jennings v. Lee 461 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1969
    * * (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 ácted 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.”
  • State v. Hess 449 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Hess 449 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Standage v. Tarpey 446 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    Then she told us further on there that she minds her own business, doesn’t go into other people’s business.” The competency of a witness to testify on a given subject is a question for the trial court’s determination, subject to review only for abuse of discretion, , Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company, 3 Ariz.App.
  • Ulan v. Richtars 446 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Ulan v. Richtars 446 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Cole v. Gerhart 423 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Cole v. Gerhart 423 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967