Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nielson v. Flashberg, 419 P.2d 514.

136 citing documents.

Swift Transportation Co of Az v. Hon. Carman Ariz. 2022
Swift Transportation Co of Az v. Hon. Carman Ariz. 2022
CARMAN/ (“[Punitive] damages are applicable where there is a ‘reckless indifference to the interests of others.’” ()).
E&M Services v. A&N Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
E&M Services v. A&N Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., ¶ 31 (App. 2014) (–39 (1966)).
Marceaux v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Marceaux v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 9(b); ¶ 73 (App. 2014); -39 (1966) (stating elements).
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
teriality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) [the speaker’s] 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) [the hearer’s] reliance on its truth; (8) [the hearer’s] right to rely thereon; and (9) [the hearer’s] consequent and proximate injury.” –39, –18 (1966).
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith 803 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith 803 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc.
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance 723 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1986
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance 723 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1986
(10) Conduct involving an unreasonable risk of causing distress, Wetzel v. Gulf Oil Corp., supra.; (11) Reckless disregard for or indifference to the rights, interests or safety of others, Smith v. Chapman, supra.; Salt River Water Users’ Association v. Giglio, supra; Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Homes Sales, Inc., , , McNelis v. Bruce, supra; , (12) Criminal acts or conduct, , (13) Acts done in bad faith
Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc. 701 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc. 701 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 680 P.2d 1203 Ariz. 1984
Holler v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 680 P.2d 1203 Ariz. 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, supra.
Schmidt v. American Leasco 679 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Schmidt v. American Leasco 679 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Wagner v. Casteel 663 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Wagner v. Casteel 663 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Auman v. Auman 653 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1982
Auman v. Auman 653 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc. 647 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1982
Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc. 647 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1982
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The purpose of the rule is to prevent the trial court from committing error in the instructions
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1982
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1982
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
54, 55 , which contains a statement of law appearing in many other Arizona opinions, “Punitive damages are not to compensate for a loss, but rather to punish for misconduct, and it (sic) must, therefore be a matter of discretion for the trier of fact.” , and Madisons Chevrolet
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The plaintiff argues that the strict rules of the law of fraud need not be observed in cases involving releases, that is, she suggests that there need not be a
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.
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979