Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal., 739 P.2d 806.

30 citing documents.

Shamamian v. Davis Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Shamamian v. Davis Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Schnurr v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Schnurr v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“A party asserting the existence of an agency relationship bears the burden of proving it.”); Miller 7 SCHNURR, et al. v. BANNER, (holding apparent agency requires “conduct of a principal that allows a third party reasonably to conclude that an agent is authorized to make certain representations or act in a particular way”); (holding apparent agency exists when the principal has “
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Apparent authority arises when a principal’s conduct “allows a third party reasonably to conclude that an agent is authorized to make certain representations or act in a particular way.”
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citing Lois Grunow, 49 Ariz. at 284) (citations omitted).
Don C. Robertson v. Robert E. Alling Ariz. 2015
Robertson v. Alling 351 P.3d 352 Ariz. 2015
Robertson v. Alling 351 P.3d 352 Ariz. 2015
Don C. Robertson v. Robert E. Alling Ariz. 2015
DON C. ROBERTSON v. ROBERT E. ALLING and JACQUELINE R. ALLING 332 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
DON C. ROBERTSON v. ROBERT E. ALLING and JACQUELINE R. ALLING 332 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
: The touchstone of apparent authority is conduct of a principal that allows a third party reasonably to conclude that an agent is authorized to make certain representations or act in a particular way.
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-91 , -12 (1987) (issues of apparent authority and reasonable reliance are jury questions); Wagner, 150 Ariz. at 87 , 722 P.2d at 255 (question whether affirmance of unauthorized dismissal could be inferred from failure to repudiate it was a jury question); Cook v. Great Western Bank & Trust
Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O'Odham Housing Authority 837 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O'Odham Housing Authority 837 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dickens v. First American Title Insurance 784 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dickens v. First American Title Insurance 784 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
“The touchstone of apparent authority is conduct of a principal that allows a third party reasonably to conclude that an agent is authorized to make certain representations or act in a particular way.”
Anchor Equities, Ltd. v. Joya 773 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Anchor Equities, Ltd. v. Joya 773 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
the court explained as follows: Imposition of employer liability under principles of apparent authority does not require a finding of concert of action between the employer and employee.
Curran v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 752 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Curran v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 752 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988