Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., 270 P. 1044.

24 citing documents.

Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gold Mining & -70 (1920); see also Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., -63 (1928) (holding that majority corporate shareholders must exercise their power "with due regard for the interests of the minority")
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“To constitute a valid consent, the beneficiary must know of the beneficiary’s rights and of the material facts relating to the breach.”); see also Garrett v. Reid- Cashion Land & Cattle Co., 270 P. 1044, 1052 (1928) (beneficiary may ratify breach of trust only if beneficiary has “full knowledge” of act and its effects); Restatement § 216 cmt.
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“To constitute a valid consent, the beneficiary must know of the beneficia *47 ry’s rights and of the material facts relating to the breach.”); see also Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., , 270 P. 1044, 1052 (1928) (beneficiary may ratify breach of trust only if beneficiary has “full knowledge” of act and its effects); Restatement § 216 cmt.
Barnes v. Vozack 540 P.2d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Barnes v. Vozack 540 P.2d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
She cites Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., , 270 P. 1044 (1928) for the proposition that majority shareholders have a fiduciary duty to inform minority shareholders of their legal rights in connection with a merger.
Mims v. Valley National Bank 481 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mims v. Valley National Bank 481 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Corporations § 786, p. 161 , 211 P. 570 ; , 193 P. 1021 ; , 270 P. 1044 , .
MacKey v. Philzona Petroleum Company 378 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1963
MacKey v. Philzona Petroleum Company 378 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1963
In our former decision we relied on the case of Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., , 270 P. 1044 stating: “If the litigants here had been strangers dealing at arms length the plaintiff would be barred from rescission.
Mackey v. Philzona Petroleum Co. 367 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1961
Mackey v. Philzona Petroleum Co. 367 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1961
270 P. 1044 , discussed at length in both briefs, this Court granted rescission of a merger although the plaintiffs had sent their stock to the bank to be exchanged for other stock in the new corporation, and one of the plaintiffs had actually attended and participated in a stockholders meeting of the new company at
Alger v. Brighter Days Mining Corp. 160 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1945
Alger v. Brighter Days Mining Corp. 160 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1945
401 ; Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., , 270 Pac.
Downing v. Skluzacek 149 P.2d 680 Ariz. 1944
Hammons v. National Surety Co. 287 P. 292 Ariz. 1930
Hammons v. National Surety Co. 287 P. 292 Ariz. 1930
Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., , 270 Pac.
Little v. Brown 283 P. 924 Ariz. 1930
Little v. Brown 283 P. 924 Ariz. 1930
As authority for such procedure, he cites Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co., , 270 Pac.
Dagg v. Hammons 272 P. 643 Ariz. 1928