Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Copper Co. v. Burciaga, 177 P. 29.

23 citing documents.

Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Damages § 2, at 615 (1966); Arizona Copper Co., -95 , 177 P. 29, 32-33 (1918), overruled in part on other grounds, , 199 P. 132 (1920).
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Damages § 2, at 615 (1966); Arizona Copper Co., -95 , 177 P. 29, 32-33 (1918), overruled in part on other grounds, , 199 P. 132 (1920).
State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
quential damages are often contrasted with “actual damages,” defined as “damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained; such compensation or damages for an injury as follow from the nature and character of the act, and will put the injured party in the position which he was in before he was injured.” 25 C.J.S., Damages § 2 at 615; Arizona Copper Co., , 177 P. 29 (1918); State v. Griswold, 8 Ariz.App.
Patterson v. Bianco 805 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Patterson v. Bianco 805 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Here, the trial court specifically found that the plaintiffs’ actual damages consisted of lost interest on the promissory notes and cash, both of which were not received “because of the delay occasioned by the defendant’s acts.” Although Patterson relies upon Arizona Copper Co., , 177 P. 29 (1918), that decision recognizes that once the wrongdoer sets a series of events into motion, he is liable for the results.
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
177 P. 29 (1918); 53 Am.Jur.
Glenn v. Chenowth 226 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1951
Glenn v. Chenowth 226 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1951
177 P. 29 ; Westberg v. Willde, 14 Cal.2d 360 , ; Winn v. Corey, 179 Okl.
Phoenix-Tempe Stone Co. v. Jenkins 237 P. 194 Ariz. 1925
Phoenix-Tempe Stone Co. v. Jenkins 237 P. 194 Ariz. 1925
are great and inherent in the occupation.” In Arizona Copper Co., Limited, v. Burciaga, , 177 Pac.
Silver King of Arizona Mining Co. v. Kendall 201 P. 102 Ariz. 1921
Silver King of Arizona Mining Co. v. Kendall 201 P. 102 Ariz. 1921
Arizona Copper Co., Ltd., v. Burciaga, , 177 Pac.
Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Gonzales 193 P. 304 Ariz. 1920
Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Gonzales 193 P. 304 Ariz. 1920
Code Ariz. 1913), and, when sustained by the evidence, is a complete defense ( , 177 Pac.
Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Egich 199 P. 132 Ariz. 1920
Calumet v. Gardner 187 P. 563 Ariz. 1920
Calumet v. Gardner 187 P. 563 Ariz. 1920
United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley 183 P. 737 Ariz. 1919
Swansea Lease, Inc. v. Molloy 183 P. 740 Ariz. 1919