DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 917 P.2d 222.

213 citing documents.

  • Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
  • Alliance Marana v. Groseclose 955 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Alliance Marana v. Groseclose 955 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
  • Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
  • Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
    § 12-2506; see also Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, -08 , -37 (1996) (citations omitted).
  • Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Gemstar, Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , see also Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 95 F.3d 1422, 1430 (9th Cir.1996) (denial of motion for JNOV reviewed de novo).
  • Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    The Arizona Supreme Court reversed that decision in Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz 493, 509 n. 4, , 238 n. 4 (1996), declining to address the issue of whether the individual shareholders involved had the capacity to sue.
  • Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1 v. Green 943 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1 v. Green 943 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , see also Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Comm’rs of City of Los Angeles, 785 F.2d 791 (9th Cir.1986), judgment aff'd, 482 U.S. 569 , 107 S.Ct.
  • Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Although the existence of a fiduciary duty is generally a question of fact, “[w]hen the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict, the trial court has a duty to decide the issue.” See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, -05 , -34 (1996) (quoting Rhoads, 145 Ariz. at 148 , 700 P.2d at 846 ).