8 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wheel Estate Corp. v. Webbgreen2 sentences2008The court set forth several reasons for denying the Estate an award of its fees, and we cannot say it abused its discretion. [8] See Wheel Estate Corp. v. Webb, 139 Ariz. 506, 508 , 679 P.2d 529, 531 (App.1983) (appellate court will not substitute its discretion for trial court's on whether to grant award of attorney fees). 2008The court set forth several reasons for denying the Estate an award of its fees, and we cannot say it abused its discretion. [8] See Wheel Estate Corp. v. Webb, 139 Ariz. 506, 508 , 679 P.2d 529, 531 (App.1983) (appellate court will not substitute its discretion for trial court's on whether to grant award of attorney fees). | 2 | 2 |
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Reserve Life Insurancegreen1 sentence2021Co., 154 Ariz. 307, 312 (1987). ¶18 Sanders and Jackson alleged that Estate defendants and Jones made misrepresentations and omitted material facts in the sale of the property and “intended that Plaintiffs rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale,” thereby violating the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 to -1534. | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc.green2 sentences2021A.R.S. § 44-1521(7), -1522(A); Parks v. Macro-Dynamics, Inc., 121 Ariz. 517, 520-21 (App. 1979) (discussing elements for a private cause of action under the CFA). 2021Id. ¶19 Sanders and Jackson also alleged Estate defendants and Jones committed the tort of negligent misrepresentation because they had a duty to disclose latent defects in the property and failed to do so, that they knew Sanders and Jackson would rely on their representations and omissions concerning the property and failed to exercise reasonable care, and that they justifiably relied on Estate defendants’ and Jones’ representations and omissions and were damaged by them. | 1 | 1 |
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc.green1 sentence2021See Ogden, 201 Ariz. at 36, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 1 |
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence2016Co., 157 Ariz. 411, 422 (1988). ¶20 In support of the Estate's claim for punitive damages, Rebeske testified Cook included "draconian terms" in the promissory note, emphasizing that Cook made herself both trustee and beneficiary of the accompanying deed of trust. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Brockgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Estate of Brock, 695 So.2d 714 (Fla.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Evensongreen1 sentence2004Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 14 (Alaska 2003); In re Estate of Evenson, 505 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn.App.1993); In re Estate of Watkins, 243 Neb. 583 , 501 N.W.2d 292, 296 (1993); Estate of Frietze, 126 N.M. 16 , 966 P.2d 183, 187 (App.1998). ¶ 16 By contrast, several other states have determined that it is not enough that the services were rendered in good faith; to justify reimbursement under the statute, those services must also be found to have benefitted the estate. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Frietzegreen2 sentences2004Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 14 (Alaska 2003); In re Estate of Evenson, 505 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn.App.1993); In re Estate of Watkins, 243 Neb. 583 , 501 N.W.2d 292, 296 (1993); Estate of Frietze, 126 N.M. 16 , 966 P.2d 183, 187 (App.1998). ¶ 16 By contrast, several other states have determined that it is not enough that the services were rendered in good faith; to justify reimbursement under the statute, those services must also be found to have benefitted the estate. 2004Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 14 (Alaska 2003); In re Estate of Evenson, 505 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn.App.1993); In re Estate of Watkins, 243 Neb. 583 , 501 N.W.2d 292, 296 (1993); Estate of Frietze, 126 N.M. 16 , 966 P.2d 183, 187 (App.1998). ¶ 16 By contrast, several other states have determined that it is not enough that the services were rendered in good faith; to justify reimbursement under the statute, those services must also be found to have benefitted the estate. | 1 | 1 |
Enders v. Parkergreen1 sentence2004Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 14 (Alaska 2003); In re Estate of Evenson, 505 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn.App.1993); In re Estate of Watkins, 243 Neb. 583 , 501 N.W.2d 292, 296 (1993); Estate of Frietze, 126 N.M. 16 , 966 P.2d 183, 187 (App.1998). ¶ 16 By contrast, several other states have determined that it is not enough that the services were rendered in good faith; to justify reimbursement under the statute, those services must also be found to have benefitted the estate. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Watkinsgreen2 sentences2004Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 14 (Alaska 2003); In re Estate of Evenson, 505 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn.App.1993); In re Estate of Watkins, 243 Neb. 583 , 501 N.W.2d 292, 296 (1993); Estate of Frietze, 126 N.M. 16 , 966 P.2d 183, 187 (App.1998). ¶ 16 By contrast, several other states have determined that it is not enough that the services were rendered in good faith; to justify reimbursement under the statute, those services must also be found to have benefitted the estate. 2004Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 14 (Alaska 2003); In re Estate of Evenson, 505 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Minn.App.1993); In re Estate of Watkins, 243 Neb. 583 , 501 N.W.2d 292, 296 (1993); Estate of Frietze, 126 N.M. 16 , 966 P.2d 183, 187 (App.1998). ¶ 16 By contrast, several other states have determined that it is not enough that the services were rendered in good faith; to justify reimbursement under the statute, those services must also be found to have benefitted the estate. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Thorn
green
1 sentence2026In re Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216 , 218 ¶ 5 (App. 2014). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
VILLA EX REL. VILLA v. Roberts
green
1 sentence2010In Villa v. Roberts, 80 F.Supp.2d 1229 (D.Kan.2000), the court applied a tolling statute to a claim *205 brought for two children’s medical expenses. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Matter of Estate of Killen
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 575 , 937 P.2d at 1381 . 2004Id. ¶ 30 Kitten teaches that a decedent’s wishes can inform a benefit to the estate analysis. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta
green
2 sentences1996Third, the real estate exception in section 25-214(C)(1) "does not apply to a spouse's partnership interest for the simple reason that it is not realty, but personalty." Id. 1996Third, the real estate exception in section 25-214(0(1) “does not apply to a spouse’s partnership interest for the simple reason that it is not realty, but personalty.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.