Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Before awarding punitive damages you must be satisfied that there has been actual damage sustained as the result of the wanton conduct of the defendant, O’Rielly Motor Company.” , Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband, supra.
Lyle v. Boyle 492 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lyle v. Boyle 492 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Gila Water Company v. Gila Land & Cattle Company, , 249 P. 751 (1926).
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
that: “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.
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
See Prosser, Torts, 3rd Ed. § 2
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mobil Oil Co. v. Frisbie 485 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
a case dealing with fraudulent representations, succinctly states: “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 be so unreasonable in regard to the circumstances of the case as to show the influence of
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
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
School Dist. No. 69 of Maricopa County v. Altherr 458 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
School Dist. No. 69 of Maricopa County v. Altherr 458 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Western Coach Corporation v. Vaughn 452 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Western Coach Corporation v. Vaughn 452 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hence, we do not follow the Restatement view but examine the evidence to ascertain whether, taking into account the conduct of Bob, and the Western Coach manager at Phoenix, there was sufficient evidence for the court to have found “reckless indifference to the interests of others.”
Kelch v. Courson 447 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1968
Kelch v. Courson 447 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1968
Brooker v. Canny 446 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1968
Brooker v. Canny 446 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1968
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
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
a case involving fraudulent certificates issued by a public weighmaster, the Court spoke of the plaintiff’s “injury” as being a “ * * * direct and proximate result of the fraud * .
Ashley v. Kramer 442 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Ashley v. Kramer 442 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
for a statement of the essential elements of fraud.
Union Bank v. Safanie 427 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Union Bank v. Safanie 427 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Gallagher Construction Co. v. Viking Supply Corp., 3 Ariz.App.
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
244 , ; Nielson v. Flashberg, Ariz.