10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences2019Decision of the Court purchaser is on constructive notice of recorded documents and “of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.” Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500 (App. 1997) (quoting Maricopa Utils. 2019L.L.C., 210 Ariz. 503 , 506 ¶ 9 (App. 2005). ¶17 A party on inquiry notice is charged with “knowledge of all of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.” Hall v. World Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500 (App. 1997) (quotation omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Maricopa Utilities Co. v. Clinegreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 214 (1943)). 2014Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 214 , 134 P.2d 156, 158 (1943) (omission in Hall). ¶ 11 In this ease, the deed of trust contained an incorrect legal description insofar as it referred to slide “168” rather than slide “166.” Otherwise, however, the legal description of the trust property was accurate. | 3 | 5 |
Schneider v. Henleygreen2 sentences1943The rule is declared in the following: “Notice of facts and circumstances, which would put a man of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry is . . . equivalent to knowledge of all of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.” Schneider v. Henley, 61 Cal. App. 758 , 215 Pac. 1036, 1038 . 1943The rule is declared in the following: “Notice of facts and circumstances, which would put a man of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry is . . . equivalent to knowledge of all of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.” Schneider v. Henley, 61 Cal. App. 758 , 215 Pac. 1036, 1038 . | 1 | 2 |
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Servicegreen1 sentence2019See 3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Serv., 224 Ariz. 274, 277, ¶ 16 (App. 2010) (holding that “[n]otice of facts and circumstances which would put a [person] of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry” constitutes constructive notice of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would reveal); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 236 Ariz. 153, 156, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“Constructive notice contrasts with actual notice . . . .”). 4 BORNSTEIN v. NATIONSTAR, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc.green1 sentence2019See 3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Serv., 224 Ariz. 274, 277, ¶ 16 (App. 2010) (holding that “[n]otice of facts and circumstances which would put a [person] of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry” constitutes constructive notice of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would reveal); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 236 Ariz. 153, 156, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“Constructive notice contrasts with actual notice . . . .”). 4 BORNSTEIN v. NATIONSTAR, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler Perry Co. v. Mortgage Bond Co.green2 sentences2014Bond Co., 41 Ariz. 247, 250-51 , 17 P.2d 331, 332 (1932) (upholding *157 homestead exemption despite omission of block number in description of land). “‘Notice of facts and circumstances which would put a [person] of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry is ... equivalent to knowledge of all of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.’ ” Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500-01 , 943 P.2d 855, 860-61 (App.1997), quoting Maricopa Utils. 2014Bond Co., 41 Ariz. 247, 250-51 , 17 P.2d 331, 332 (1932) (upholding *157 homestead exemption despite omission of block number in description of land). “‘Notice of facts and circumstances which would put a [person] of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry is ... equivalent to knowledge of all of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.’ ” Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500-01 , 943 P.2d 855, 860-61 (App.1997), quoting Maricopa Utils. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2019L.L.C., 210 Ariz. 503 , 506 ¶ 9 (App. 2005). ¶17 A party on inquiry notice is charged with “knowledge of all of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.” Hall v. World Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500 (App. 1997) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hay v. Duskin
green
1 sentence2018Hay, 9 Ariz. App. at 605 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Valley National Bank of Ariz. v. Avco Develop. Co.
green
2 sentences2010Accordingly, although a party need not search for such facts, that party also “may not willfully ignore information at hand which would lead to the discovery of unrecorded adverse claims.” Valley Nat’l Bank, 14 Ariz.App. at 61 , 480 P.2d at 676 . ¶ 17 3502 Lending argues that it had no constructive notice of the first and second deeds of trust because they had been recorded without the necessary legal description. 2010Accordingly, although a party need not search for such facts, that party also “may not willfully ignore information at hand which would lead to the discovery of unrecorded adverse claims.” Valley Nat’l Bank, 14 Ariz.App. at 61 , 480 P.2d at 676 . ¶ 17 3502 Lending argues that it had no constructive notice of the first and second deeds of trust because they had been recorded without the necessary legal description. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.