7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhousegreen2 sentences2018See Standard Chartered PLC, 190 Ariz. at 26 . ¶46 Similarly, the Atkinses do not explain how Snell breached its fiduciary duty to Missy on her separate claim, which is based on the PNA. 2011Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is generally a question of fact unless the evidence would be insufficient to support a verdict, in which case the court may rule as a matter of law. *334 Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 24 , 945 P.2d 317, 335 (App.1996). ¶ 14 “A fiduciary relationship has been described as ‘something approximating business agency, professional relationship, or family tie impelling or inducing the trusting party to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise.’ ” Taeger v. Catholic Family and Cmty. Servs., 196 Ariz. 285, 290, ¶ 11 , 9 | 2 | 2 |
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS.green2 sentences2011Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is generally a question of fact unless the evidence would be insufficient to support a verdict, in which case the court may rule as a matter of law. *334 Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 24 , 945 P.2d 317, 335 (App.1996). ¶ 14 “A fiduciary relationship has been described as ‘something approximating business agency, professional relationship, or family tie impelling or inducing the trusting party to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise.’ ” Taeger v. Catholic Family and Cmty. Servs., 196 Ariz. 285, 290, ¶ 11 , 9 2008Id. at 294, ¶ 27 , 995 P.2d at 730 . ¶ 53 In analyzing the question of whether there is a right to a jury trial for a breach of a fiduciary duty claim, we base our analysis on two premises: (1) claims for breach of fiduciary duty are equitable actions, and (2) no constitutional right to a jury trial exists for actions that were considered equitable at or near the time Arizona’s constitution was adopted. | 1 | 2 |
Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurancegreen1 sentence2025See A.R.S. § 12-548 (imposing a 6-year statute of limitations); see also Zuckerman, 133 Ariz. at 142 . ¶38 Based on those undisputed facts, a reasonable jury could infer appellees did not show “undivided loyalty to [the first LLC] in all matters affecting [its] interests.” True enough, Arizona law also says, “A member does not violate a duty or obligation under this chapter or under the operating agreement solely because the member’s conduct furthers the member’s own interest.” A.R.S. § 29-3409.E. | 1 | 1 |
Harry Bechtel and Cathleen Bechtel, Husband and Wife v. Liberty National Bank, a National Banking Associationgreen1 sentence2021Bank, 534 F.2d 1335, 1341 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9 , 28–29, ¶¶ 66–73 (App. 2006) (analyzing breach of a fiduciary duty claim based on misrepresentations under the law governing actions for deceit). | 1 | 1 |
Grand v. Nacchiogreen1 sentence2021Bank, 534 F.2d 1335, 1341 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9 , 28–29, ¶¶ 66–73 (App. 2006) (analyzing breach of a fiduciary duty claim based on misrepresentations under the law governing actions for deceit). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourantgreen1 sentence2020Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 229 Ariz. 124, 133, ¶ 31 (App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
In Re McDonnell's Estategreen2 sentences2011Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is generally a question of fact unless the evidence would be insufficient to support a verdict, in which case the court may rule as a matter of law. *334 Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 24 , 945 P.2d 317, 335 (App.1996). ¶ 14 “A fiduciary relationship has been described as ‘something approximating business agency, professional relationship, or family tie impelling or inducing the trusting party to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise.’ ” Taeger v. Catholic Family and Cmty. Servs., 196 Ariz. 285, 290, ¶ 11 , 9 2011Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is generally a question of fact unless the evidence would be insufficient to support a verdict, in which case the court may rule as a matter of law. *334 Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 24 , 945 P.2d 317, 335 (App.1996). ¶ 14 “A fiduciary relationship has been described as ‘something approximating business agency, professional relationship, or family tie impelling or inducing the trusting party to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise.’ ” Taeger v. Catholic Family and Cmty. Servs., 196 Ariz. 285, 290, ¶ 11 , 9 | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Mayergreen2 sentences2008Henry v. Mayer, 6 Ariz. 103, 114 , 53 P. 590, 593 (Ariz.Terr.1898) (“[T]he cause being one of equitable jurisdiction, the court below was not bound to submit any issue of fact to a jury, but, on the contrary, might, in its discretion, have properly refused the request made by the appellee ... for a jury trial.”); Cole v. Bean, 1 Ariz. 377, 378 , 25 P. 538 , 539 (Ariz.Terr.1878) (explaining that in cases in equity proceedings, “there seems to be no reason for the intervention of a jury” unless the court desires one). ¶ 54 As to the first premise, that a breach of a fiduciary duty (even if in th 2008Henry v. Mayer, 6 Ariz. 103, 114 , 53 P. 590, 593 (Ariz.Terr.1898) (“[T]he cause being one of equitable jurisdiction, the court below was not bound to submit any issue of fact to a jury, but, on the contrary, might, in its discretion, have properly refused the request made by the appellee ... for a jury trial.”); Cole v. Bean, 1 Ariz. 377, 378 , 25 P. 538 , 539 (Ariz.Terr.1878) (explaining that in cases in equity proceedings, “there seems to be no reason for the intervention of a jury” unless the court desires one). ¶ 54 As to the first premise, that a breach of a fiduciary duty (even if in th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer
green
1 sentence2025Tovrea Land & Cattle Co., 100 Ariz. at 114 . ¶22 In assessing a fiduciary duty claim, the focus is on the “nature of the defendant’s preparations to compete.” See Sec. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope
green
1 sentence2025Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope, 219 Ariz. 480 , 492 ¶ 54 (App. 2008). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cole v. Bean
neutral
1 sentence2008Henry v. Mayer, 6 Ariz. 103, 114 , 53 P. 590, 593 (Ariz.Terr.1898) (“[T]he cause being one of equitable jurisdiction, the court below was not bound to submit any issue of fact to a jury, but, on the contrary, might, in its discretion, have properly refused the request made by the appellee ... for a jury trial.”); Cole v. Bean, 1 Ariz. 377, 378 , 25 P. 538 , 539 (Ariz.Terr.1878) (explaining that in cases in equity proceedings, “there seems to be no reason for the intervention of a jury” unless the court desires one). ¶ 54 As to the first premise, that a breach of a fiduciary duty (even if in th | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Parkerson v. Borst
green
1 sentence1963Parkerson v. Borst, 5 Cir., 264 F. 761 , supra. The Parkerson case was similar in principle to the one at bar, involving the breach of a fiduciary duty and a claim of ratification in the ensuing action for damages. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.