Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carty v. Wood, 51 Ariz. 483.

19 citing documents.

Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“Moreover, if a fiduciary who speaks falsely or refuses to reveal the truth also personally profits by his fraudulent conduct, that conduct will justify intervention by the court even in a collateral proceeding.” Thurston, 199 Ariz. at 219, ¶ 21 , 16 P.3d at 780 (citing In re Sullivan’s Estate, , ).
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In re Sullivan’s Estate, , -37 (1938).
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(contingent indebtedness claim of bank had value); , (“[An] attorney’s contingency fee contract is a valuable property right, though the contingency upon which it is based has not been fulfilled.”).
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
We said in In re Sullivan’s Estate, , : “If it appears that the executors or administrators have been guilty of extrinsic fraud in securing the order approving the account, such order may be attacked directly and set aside at any time, * * .” We therefore conclude that the Superior Court did not err in setting aside the final
Raestle v. Whitson 582 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1978
In Re Sullivan’s Estate, , *527 Stump v. Flint, 195 Kan.
Roberson v. Teel 513 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Shattuck v. Shattuck, supra; Estate of Sullivan, , , 246 P. 1036 (1926).
In Re Estate of Wiswall 464 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In re O’Reilly’s Estate, supra, and as stated *325 in In re Sullivan’s Estate, , : “ * * * It is the general rule that statutory administrators’ fees should not be based upon the appraised value of the estate, which is only prima facie evidence of the real value, but on the real value, when there is evidence thereof.” While the mode of determining compensation is imma
Funk v. Superior Court 453 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1969
In Estate of Sullivan, , we said: “The language of the statute is explicit.
In Re Estate and Guardianship of Purton 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Winch v. Fong 441 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Smith 431 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In re Warren’s Estate, , In re Balke’s Estate, supra; Estate of Pedelty, , Estate of Sullivan, , , 246 P. 1036 (1926).
McClave v. Electric Supply, Inc. 379 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1963
does most of our probate code, In re Sullivan’s Estate, , .
Cox v. MacKenzie 219 P.2d 1048 Ariz. 1950
at page 431, ; , at page 490, ; Dockery v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., at page 443, , and cases cited; In re Bell’s Estate, 70 Wash.
Byrd v. Cieplak 206 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1949
Section 38-1313, A.C.A.1939; In re Sullivan’s Estate, , ; , ; In re Doane’s Estate, 64 Wash.
In Re Balke's Estate 206 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1949
1939; , ; , ; In re Doane's Estate, 64 Wn.
Shattuck v. Shattuck 192 P.2d 229 Ariz. 1948
246 P. 1036 ; In re Sullivan’s Estate, , .
Van Zandt v. Gardner 166 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1946
A number of cases, including Estate of Sullivan, , , have been cited by appellants to the effect that the statute deprives the court and representative of jurisdiction to approve a barred claim.
In Re Tolleson's Estate 166 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1946
A number of cases, including Estate of Sullivan, .
Estate of Pedelty v. McLellan 150 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1944
From Section 38-1313, Arizona Code Annotated 1939., the notes of which section cite the opinion of In re Sullivan’s Estate, , 78 Pac.