Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lane Title and Trust Company v. Brannan, 440 P.2d 105.

46 citing documents.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-77 (1968) (citation omitted) (explaining that the essential elements of a trust are: a competent settlor and a trustee; a clear and unequivocal intent to create a trust; an ascertainable trust res; and sufficiently identifiable beneficiaries).
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
and Muccilli v. Huff’s Boys’ Store, Inc., ).
Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 15, (stating party asserting legal malpractice must prove defendant’s negligence caused the injury; actual injury/damage caused by lawyer’s negligence is critical to claim of legal malpractice); Lane Title & (stating a claim of breach of fiduciary duty requires proving that the breach caused the loss); KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins.
Kaz Construction, Inc v. Sierra Cobre Estates, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Kaz Construction, Inc v. Sierra Cobre Estates, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
E.g., Lane Title & -78, -11 (1968) (trust “governed by the provisions of the instrument which creates it or general trust law”); Dunlap, 133 Ariz. at 132, 650 P.2d at 434 (beneficiary has vested interest in property itself absent agreement to the contrary)
In Re Naarden Trust 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Naarden Trust 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See, e.g., Lane Title & -78 , -11 (1968) (a subdivision trust is a common law trust governed by the trust instrument or general trust law, and one who violates a fiduciary duty may be held liable for a breach of trust ); In re Estate of Ehlers, 80 Wash.App.
Moore v. Kieber 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Moore v. Kieber 990 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See, e.g., Lane Title & -78 , -11 (1968) (a subdivision trust is a common law trust governed by the trust instrument or general trust law, and one who violates a fiduciary duty may be held liable for a breach of trust); In re Estate of Ehlers, 80 Wash.App.
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lane Title and, , , , 1382 (1973).
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Metcalf 775 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1989
City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Metcalf 775 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1989
§ 33-703; Lane Title & , Brant, 129 Ariz. at 480 , 632 P.2d at 983 (deed of trust, although technically granting legal title to trustee, does not grant more than a lien on the property).
Hoyle v. Dickinson 746 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Hoyle v. Dickinson 746 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
The Arizona Supreme Court in Lane Title & , in reviewing a subdivision trust agreement held that, in Arizona, a subdivision trust is to be treated as a common law trust and is to be governed either by the provisions of the agreement creating it or by general trust law.
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-277 , -110 (1968); Jabczenski v. Southern Pac.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Because we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustain the verdict and judgment, Lane Title & , we assume the jury properly accepted Clarke’s version.
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
Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Seven G Ranching Co. v. Stewart Title & Trust 627 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Seven G Ranching Co. v. Stewart Title & Trust 627 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Mason v. Arizona Public Service Co. 622 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mason v. Arizona Public Service Co. 622 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Estate of Blake v. Benza 587 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Estate of Blake v. Benza 587 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Lane Title & , Muccilli v. Huff’s Boys’ Store, Inc., 12 Ariz.App.
Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc. 579 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc. 579 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
239 , , , we find ample, if not overwhelming support for the conclusions that Sequoia was negligent in its construction of the ROPS, that the ROPS was defective when it left Sequoia after manufacture, and that the defect made the ROPS unreasonably dangerous to the user.
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Universal Under. Ins. Co. v. State Auto. & Cas. Under. 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Universal Under. Ins. Co. v. State Auto. & Cas. Under. 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
Continental National Bank v. Evans 489 P.2d 15 Ariz. 1971
Viewing the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party, , the facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows.
Muccilli v. Huff's Boys' Store, Inc. 473 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Muccilli v. Huff's Boys' Store, Inc. 473 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970