Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD, 747 P.2d 1218.

167 citing documents.

Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insulation Specialists Co. 919 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
& Trust Co., , , 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.6(1), at 337 (2d ed. 1993) (prejudgment interest permitted if damages “can be ascertained by application of arithmetic or by the application of ‘accepted standards of valuation,’ without reliance on opinion or discretion.”).
Matter of Estate of Killen 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
McCannon v. McCannon 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
McCannon v. McCannon 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In finding that it did not have jurisdiction to award Marion attorneys’ fees from the estate, the probate court relied on Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , disapproved in other part
Matter of Estate of Killen 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In finding that it did not have jurisdiction to award Marion attorneys' fees from the estate, the probate court relied on Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , disapproved in other part
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , overruled on other grounds, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Cf. Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , (professional malpractice actions do not “aris[e] out of a contract” for purposes of an award of attorney’s fees under AR.S.
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
The difference “between tort and contract liability has become an increasingly difficult distinction to make.” Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 92, at 655 (5th ed. 1984)).
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
We also recognize that the difference "between tort and contract liability has become an increasingly difficult distinction to make.” , (citing W. Page Keeton et al„ Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 92, at 655 (5th ed. 1984)).
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
147 Ariz. at 393-94 , 710 P.2d at 1048-49 ; see also Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , (interim award of fees on appeal resulting in reversal of summary judgment and remand for new trial was proper where appellants’ “legal position was meritorious and the issue resolved was central to the case”).
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
See Trebilocox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , (trial court may not award attorneys’ fees after the filing of a notice of appeal), overruled on other grounds
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
our supreme court noted it previously had held that attorneys’ fees may be awarded under section 12-341.0KA) if the act in question constituted both a tort and a breach of contract, “ ‘as long as the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of contract.’” Id.
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
service.” Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
for the proposition that this type of covenant arises out of tort rather than contract.
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Thunderbird Masonry, Inc. 868 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Thunderbird Masonry, Inc. 868 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
While Thunderbird’s contract with Northview and Northview’s contracts with Fire Insurance and First Commercial placed the parties in the posture for the subrogation action which is the subject of this appeal, see Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , Fire Insurance is not entitled to more rights than the party to which it maintains it is subrogated, First Commercial.
Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In such cases, fees may be awarded under 12-341.01(A) “as long as the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of contract.” Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , (quoting Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins.
O'KEEFE v. Grenke 825 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
O'KEEFE v. Grenke 825 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(tort arising from breach of a contractual duty arises out of contract); Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins.
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , see Dodge, 161 Ariz. at 348 , 778 P.2d at 1244 .
INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. Santa Cruz 800 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1990
INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. Santa Cruz 800 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1990
Dusold v. Porta-John Corp. 807 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dusold v. Porta-John Corp. 807 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, e.g., Bar- *363 , Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd.
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D 797 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D 797 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Subsequent to the Arizona Supreme Court opinion in the prior case, , Hazlett and the Murphy Partners entered into settlement negotiations with Barmat and agreed to pay her $470,000 plus interest in full and complete satisfaction of her legal malpractice claims against them.
Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc. 798 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc. 798 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
& Trust Co., , overruled on other grounds
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Estate of Kirschenbaum v. Kirschenbaum 793 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Estate of Kirschenbaum v. Kirschenbaum 793 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
She argues that a fee award is not permitted under Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , because the causes of action for accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, theft and fraud relate specifically to Irving’s partnership duties and are those “implied in law” rather than those “implied in fact.” In view of the fact that the case is being remanded for further proceedings on the RICO co
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 779 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 779 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , disapproved on other grounds, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 775 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 775 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , disapproved on other grounds, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D
Asphalt Engineers, Inc. v. Galusha 770 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by