6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harmon v. Harmongreen2 sentences2006See Harmon, 126 Ariz. at 244 , 613 P.2d at 1300 . 2006See Harmon, 126 Ariz. at 244 , 613 P.2d at 1300 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of McCauleygreen2 sentences2025Gamma’s agreement to and active participation in the process waives any argument that a different process should have been employed. ¶48 Although Smith did not formally amend its pleadings to assert a constructive trust claim against Gamma, Rule 15(b)(2) provides that “[w]hen an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties’ express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings.” See also Parker v. City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 439, ¶ 51 (App. 2013) (affirming Rule 15(b) automatically amends pleadings to conform to the evidence an 2025“Failure to object to the introduction of evidence on the ground that it is not within the issues is sufficient to imply consent to try such issues.” Parker, 233 Ariz. at 439 , ¶ 51 (quoting In re McCauley’s Estate, 101 Ariz. at 18 ). 14 SMITH, et al. v. AFC GAMMA, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiativegreen2 sentences2025Gamma’s agreement to and active participation in the process waives any argument that a different process should have been employed. ¶48 Although Smith did not formally amend its pleadings to assert a constructive trust claim against Gamma, Rule 15(b)(2) provides that “[w]hen an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties’ express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings.” See also Parker v. City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 439, ¶ 51 (App. 2013) (affirming Rule 15(b) automatically amends pleadings to conform to the evidence an 2025“Failure to object to the introduction of evidence on the ground that it is not within the issues is sufficient to imply consent to try such issues.” Parker, 233 Ariz. at 439 , ¶ 51 (quoting In re McCauley’s Estate, 101 Ariz. at 18 ). 14 SMITH, et al. v. AFC GAMMA, et al. | 1 | 1 |
French v. Frenchgreen1 sentence2016Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, 83, ¶ 6 (2000); French v. French, 125 Ariz. 12, 15 (App. 1980) (addressing laches in the context of a constructive trust claim). | 1 | 1 |
Sotomayor v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2016Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, 83, ¶ 6 (2000); French v. French, 125 Ariz. 12, 15 (App. 1980) (addressing laches in the context of a constructive trust claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McFarlin v. Hall
green
2 sentences1987McFarlin v. Hall, 127 Ariz. 220 , 619 P.2d 729 (1980). 1987McFarlin v. Hall, 127 Ariz. 220 , 619 P.2d 729 (1980). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Arm, Inc. v. Terrazas
green
2 sentences1975We have recently stated in Arm, Inc. v. Terrazas, 24 Ariz.App. 441 , 539 P.2d 915 (1975) that: A constructive trust is a remedial device created by courts of equity to compel one who unfairly holds a property interest to convey that interest to another to whom it justly belongs. 1975We have recently stated in Arm, Inc. v. Terrazas, 24 Ariz.App. 441 , 539 P.2d 915 (1975) that: A constructive trust is a remedial device created by courts of equity to compel one who unfairly holds a property interest to convey that interest to another to whom it justly belongs. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.