DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinedo v. Arizona Dept of Transportation, 38 P.3d 12.

71 citing documents.

  • Jackson v. Eagle KMC LLC 418 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Fund , , 482, ¶ 13, , 20 (2002).
  • Kopp v. Physicians Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ue the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party and will affirm only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Drew, 233 Ariz. at 524, ¶ 8, 314 P.3d at 1279 (citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14, Orme Sch.
  • Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Cummins was ordered depublished by our supreme court, P.3d 12 (2002), and we do not consider it.
  • ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 78 , (“The essential thing is the intent to cause the result.”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 cmt.
  • Zeman v. Baumkirchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    or [committed] a tort that cause[d] injury to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant [knew] the primary tortfeasor’s conduct constitute[d] a breach of duty; and (3) the defendant [had] substantially assist[ed] or encourage[d] the primary tortfeasor in the achievement of the breach.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 34
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 490 ¶ 59, , 28 (2002).
  • Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 34, (as an element of an aiding and abetting claim, plaintiff must prove defendant substantially assisted or encouraged the primary tortfeasor).
  • Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District 349 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    ocedural 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
  • Armc 2011 v. Fennemore Craig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    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
  • Manzo v. Hayman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Manzo timely appealed.1 DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶5 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.” ¶ 14
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13, Strojnik v. Gen.
  • Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    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
  • Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13
  • Tavilla v. Blue Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    A party violates the implied covenant when it does “anything to prevent other parties to the contract from receiving the benefits and entitlements of the agreement.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 59
  • Rzendzian v. M&I Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters, and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, -91, ¶¶ 59-63, -29 (2003) (noting that “implied terms” can exist in a contract to establish a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but claims for contract damages are governed by whether an agreement between parties established a duty that was breached).
  • 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 MIDTOWN v. FARMERS
  • 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 construction may be liable for
  • 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    ample, 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
    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 King v. O’Rielly Motor Co.
  • 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
    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
    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
    ral 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
    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
    d 940, 944 (App.2000) (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
    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
    & Fabricating, Inc., ¶ 15 , (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 14 , , 20 (2002)).
  • 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
    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
    “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
    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
    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
    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
  • Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Sam's Plumbing Thomas, Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & 3 Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons, ¶ 13
  • Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 31 , , 23 (2002).
  • Highland Village Partners, LLC v. BRADBURY & STAMM CONSTRUCTION CO. 195 P.3d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 59 , , 28 (2002).
  • Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14 , , 20 (2002).
  • Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 59
  • Neonatology Associates, Ltd. v. Phoenix Perinatal Associates Inc. 164 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 482 ¶ 13
  • Dube v. Likins Powell Hixon Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Wells Fargo Bank 8 v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 33-34
  • Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 19 , , 21 (2002).
  • Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395, n. 18, n. 18 (2002) (“Proof of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a preponderance of the evidence.”).