7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alaface v. National Investment Co.green2 sentences2016Co., 181 Ariz. 586, 591 (App. 1994) (consumer fraud action accrues when "the plaintiff knows or should have known of both the what and who elements of causation") (emphasis and quotation omitted). ¶20 As with the defamation claim, the Parkses added the consumer fraud claim in their first amended complaint, filed in 2014. 2000See id. at 592 , 892 P.2d at 1381 . | 2 | 2 |
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.green2 sentences1994A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.; Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573, 575-76 , 521 P.2d 1119, 1121-22 (1974). 1994A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.; Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573, 575-76 , 521 P.2d 1119, 1121-22 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc.green2 sentences1986Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., 145 Ariz. 374, 377 , 701 P.2d 1182, 1185 (1985). 1986Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., 145 Ariz. 374, 377 , 701 P.2d 1182, 1185 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
green
2 sentences2006The Trust asserts the trial court erred by “importing statutory securities loss causation into” these claims and “in granting summary judgment before [it] could develop a record on proximate causation.” ¶ 67 The Trust argues Dura is inapplicable to its common law and consumer fraud claims because it is “a very narrow decision on a matter of federal securities law.” As discussed above, however, Dura does not significantly restrict the means by which a plaintiff can show proximate cause; it only clarifies that merely alleging an inflated purchase price is insufficient to do so. 544 U.S. at 342 , 2006The Trust asserts the trial court erred by “importing statutory securities loss causation into” these claims and “in granting summary judgment before [it] could develop a record on proximate causation.” ¶ 67 The Trust argues Dura is inapplicable to its common law and consumer fraud claims because it is “a very narrow decision on a matter of federal securities law.” As discussed above, however, Dura does not significantly restrict the means by which a plaintiff can show proximate cause; it only clarifies that merely alleging an inflated purchase price is insufficient to do so. 544 U.S. at 342 , | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Kuehn v. Stanley
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 130, ¶ 20, 91 P.3d at 352 . ¶16 Here, unlike the plaintiffs in Kuehn, Sands was not bound to buy the Jeep when Tempe Dodge was trying to persuade him to buy a different vehicle. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.