Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Giglio
Schmidt v. MEL CLAYTON FORD, ETC. 601 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Schmidt v. MEL CLAYTON FORD, ETC. 601 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Spitz v. Bache & Company, Inc. 596 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1979
Spitz v. Bache & Company, Inc. 596 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1979
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
Wedgewood Investment Corp. v. International Harvester Co. 613 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Wedgewood Investment Corp. v. International Harvester Co. 613 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
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).
Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1979
Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1979
Braun v. Moreno, 11 Ariz.App.
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Country Escrow Service v. Janes 591 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Country Escrow Service v. Janes 591 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Peery v. Hansen 585 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Peery v. Hansen 585 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Magma Copper Co. v. Shuster 575 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Magma Copper Co. v. Shuster 575 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
The Arizona Supreme Court, without ever having adopted the rule, , : “The amount of an award for punitive damages being a matter of discretion of the trier of fact, such award will not be disturbed unless it is so unreasonable in regard to the circumstances of the case as to show the influence of passion or prejudice.
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
369 , see, , City of Tucson v. La Forge, 8 Ariz.App.
Van Buren v. Pima Community College District Board 546 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1976
Van Buren v. Pima Community College District Board 546 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1976
In order to sustain the burden of proof in a claim for relief for fraud, the plaintiff must show “a concurrence of all the elements thereof.”
Cedic Development Corp. v. Sibole 541 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Cedic Development Corp. v. Sibole 541 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
(instructions) ; , (misconduct); Nichols v. Elkins, 2 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Nielson v. Flashberg, supra [ , ]; Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 908 Comment a.” , and we also said: “In Arizona, the law is well settled that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury and such award will not be distur
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
*268 , Denbo v. Badger, 18 Ariz.App.
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates 517 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates 517 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
They may be awarded where there has been a “reckless indifference to the interests of others.” , Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. Cord, 14 Ariz.App.
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Such damages are applicable where there is a ‘reckless indifference to the interest of others.’ , ; Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 908, Comment b.”
Denbo v. Badger 503 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Denbo v. Badger 503 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
and cases cited therein.
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Braun v. Moreno, 11 Ariz.App.
Tarnoff v. Jones 497 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tarnoff v. Jones 497 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972