Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company, 442 P.2d 97.

45 citing documents.

Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co., overruled on other grounds, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co., , overruled on other grounds by Burch &amp
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n 943 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n 943 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Co., , , cert, denied, 393 U.S. 999 , 89 S.Ct.
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
§ 42-236.” Arizona case law has long held that “a judgment on a motion for summary judgment may be either for or against the moving party, even though the opposing party has not filed such a motion.” , ( , overruled on other grounds by Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Wilcox v. Waldman 744 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Wilcox v. Waldman 744 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Co., , had held a trustee liable in a similar situation on a constructive trust theory, but now reversed that holding, stating as follows: Allowing the mere filing of a complaint to prevent the disbursal of a trust is too much remedy for too little wrong.
Teran v. Citicorp Person-To-Person Financial Center 706 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Teran v. Citicorp Person-To-Person Financial Center 706 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1985
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1985
As for Stewart, the majority held that if the clients were subsequently found liable to the lawyers, , cert.
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm 682 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm 682 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani 697 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
If D’Antonio and Cracchiolo can prove that Miller and Pugliani were constructive trustees with respect to the proceeds of Trust no. 1905, , , cert.
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 664 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1983
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Goubeaux 664 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1983
Co., , seller may not prevail for the reason that the buyers did not have the burden of proving that the sale was commercially unreasonable.
John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. v. Reliance Truck Co. 614 P.2d 327 Ariz. 1980
John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. v. Reliance Truck Co. 614 P.2d 327 Ariz. 1980
Malisewski v. Singer 598 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Malisewski v. Singer 598 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Scott v. Allstate Insurance Company 553 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Scott v. Allstate Insurance Company 553 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Sepo v. Case 541 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Amtitle Trust Company v. Fitch 541 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Amtitle Trust Company v. Fitch 541 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Sepo v. Case 541 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman 510 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman 510 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Fendler v. Texaco Oil Company 499 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fendler v. Texaco Oil Company 499 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison 484 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison 484 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
See e. g., , ; , , (filed 12/22/69).
Trimmer v. Ludtke 462 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1969
Trimmer v. Ludtke 462 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1969
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Upon a reversal, without instructions, generally a new trial is required: “The general rule is that a reversal of a judgment restores the parties to the same position as if the action had never been tried.”