DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tru…, 38 P.3d 12.

259 citing documents.

  • Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 77, (noting that the third element of intentional interference requires the interferer to know or intend that “a particular result was substantially certain to be produced by its conduct” (internal quotation marks 4 MIDTOW
  • Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶8 Summary judgment is appropriate “if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 14, Barkhurst‟s complaint also raised claims of premises liability and security liability, but not against The Kingsmen.
  • Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, (summary judgment not appropriate where “‘reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party’”); quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); (owner who retains control of constructio
  • Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Summary judgment is appropriate only when “no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 14
  • A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14, Orme Sch.
  • Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14 , , 20 (2002); Orme Sch.
  • Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 31-36 , , 23 (2002).
  • Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002).
  • James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
  • James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
    For example, we have noted that “Arizona recognizes aiding and abetting as embodied in Restatement [(Second) of Torts] § 876(b),” and “a person who aids and abets a tortfeasor is himself liable for the resulting harm to a third person.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 31
  • Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    party to a transaction who by concealment or other action intentionally prevents the other from acquiring material information is subject to the same liability to the other, for pecuniary loss as though he had stated the nonexistence of the matter that the other was thus prevented from discovering.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 87 , , 34 (2002) (emphasis added) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 550 (1976)); see also Kin
  • Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 34 , , 23 (2002) (aiding and abetting); Baker v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix, Inc., ¶ 42 , (conspiracy).
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002); Strojnik v. Gen.
  • Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Semper Investments, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Semper Investments, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
  • Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
  • Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence and reasonable inferences „in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.‟” Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
  • Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002); Strojnik v. Gen.
  • State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 14 , (common-law fraud claim typically requires an affirmative misrepresentation, but when a defendant has “a legal or equitable obligation to reveal material information,” failure to do so is “equivalent to” a fraudulent misrepresentation); see also Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 496 n.22, ¶ 88, , 34 n.22 (2002) 14 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 (1977)); S Dev.
  • Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Bondwriter Southwest, Inc. 263 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Bondwriter Southwest, Inc. 263 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002) (motion for summary judgment); Trustmark Ins.
  • Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    & Fabricating, Inc., ¶ 15 , (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 14 , , 20 (2002)).
  • Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
  • Tarron v. Bowen MacHine & Fabricating, Inc. 235 P.3d 1030 Ariz. 2010
    - 6 - ¶15 Summary judgment is appropriate “if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 14
  • Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002).
  • County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 59 , , 28 (2002).
  • Yeung v. MARIC 232 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Yeung v. MARIC 232 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons, ¶ 14
  • Federico v. MARIC 226 P.3d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Federico v. MARIC 226 P.3d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Aiding and Abetting ¶ 8 The law of aiding and abetting in Arizona was extensively addressed in Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
  • Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 69-70
  • Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence and reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13