A. A person is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor who:
1. Knowingly and with the intent to sell to the public real or personal property or services, or to induce the public to acquire an interest therein, makes and publishes an advertisement, either printed or by public outcry or proclamation, or otherwise, containing any false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representations in respect to such property or services, or the manner of its sale or distribution.
2. Publishes, circulates or disseminates any statement or assertion of fact concerning real estate which is known by him to be untrue, and which is made or disseminated with the intention of misleading.
B. A merchant is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor who advertises or displays any brand of goods known to the general public and quotes prices in connection therewith as an inducement to attract purchasers to the place of business so advertised, and makes false statements regarding the quality or merits of the goods advertised.
Notes of Decisions
Ward v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 731 P.2d 106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The question presented in this appeal is whether the trial court properly granted appellee insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on three counts of appellants’ complaint alleging bad faith in denying a claim pursuant to an automobile insurance policy and violations of…”
Dollar a Day Rent a Car Sys. Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 526 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “, supra; or subject to suit for violations of A.R.S. §§ 44-1481 or 44-1522. While we recognize that appellant has a substantial interest in making full use of its well-publicized trade name, we find no unjustifiable discrimination in appellee’s refusal to promote that name by…”
Transamerica Fin. Corp. v. Superior Court, 746 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Knowingly and with the intent to sell to the public real or personal property or services, or to induce the public to acquire an interest therein, makes and publishes an advertisement, either printed or by public outcry or proclamation, or otherwise, containing any false,…”
State v. Tober, 826 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Consequently, a lack of intent to violate the law or good faith belief that the note in question was not a security is not a defense in Arizona, in marked contrast to federal law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.