6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dube v. Likinsgreen2 sentences2016Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406, 412, ¶ 14 (App. 2007). 2016See Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406, 411, ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (“A plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference must allege the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; the interferer’s knowledge of the relationship or expectancy; intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added)). | 2 | 2 |
Glaze v. Larsengreen2 sentences2007See Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26, ¶ 10 , 83 P.3d 26, 29 (2004) (“The determination of when a cause of action accrues requires an analysis of the elements of the claim presented.”). ¶ 8 A plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference must allege “ ‘the existence of a valid contractual relationsMp or business expectancy; the interferer’s knowledge of the relationsMp or expectancy; intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationsMp or expectancy; and resMtant damage to the party whose relationsMp or expectancy has been disrupted.’” Miller v. Hehlen, 2 2007See Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26, ¶ 10 , 83 P.3d 26, 29 (2004) (“The determination of when a cause of action accrues requires an analysis of the elements of the claim presented.”). ¶ 8 A plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference must allege “ ‘the existence of a valid contractual relationsMp or business expectancy; the interferer’s knowledge of the relationsMp or expectancy; intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationsMp or expectancy; and resMtant damage to the party whose relationsMp or expectancy has been disrupted.’” Miller v. Hehlen, 2 | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Hehlengreen2 sentences2007See Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26, ¶ 10 , 83 P.3d 26, 29 (2004) (“The determination of when a cause of action accrues requires an analysis of the elements of the claim presented.”). ¶ 8 A plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference must allege “ ‘the existence of a valid contractual relationsMp or business expectancy; the interferer’s knowledge of the relationsMp or expectancy; intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationsMp or expectancy; and resMtant damage to the party whose relationsMp or expectancy has been disrupted.’” Miller v. Hehlen, 2 2007See Glaze v. Larsen, 207 Ariz. 26, ¶ 10 , 83 P.3d 26, 29 (2004) (“The determination of when a cause of action accrues requires an analysis of the elements of the claim presented.”). ¶ 8 A plaintiff asserting a claim for tortious interference must allege “ ‘the existence of a valid contractual relationsMp or business expectancy; the interferer’s knowledge of the relationsMp or expectancy; intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationsMp or expectancy; and resMtant damage to the party whose relationsMp or expectancy has been disrupted.’” Miller v. Hehlen, 2 | 2 | 2 |
Calhoun First National Bank v. Dickensgreen1 sentence2017Corp. v. Colonial Bank, 601 S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (requiring a plaintiff asserting a claim of wrongful foreclosure under Georgia law “to establish a legal duty owed to it by the foreclosing party, a breach of that duty, a causal connection between the breach of that duty and the injury it sustained, and damages”) (citing Calhoun First Nat’l Bank v. Dickens, 443 S.E.2d 837, 839 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Heritage Creek Development Corp. v. Colonial Bankgreen1 sentence2017Corp. v. Colonial Bank, 601 S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (requiring a plaintiff asserting a claim of wrongful foreclosure under Georgia law “to establish a legal duty owed to it by the foreclosing party, a breach of that duty, a causal connection between the breach of that duty and the injury it sustained, and damages”) (citing Calhoun First Nat’l Bank v. Dickens, 443 S.E.2d 837, 839 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUMgreen2 sentences2016See Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 92, 859 P.2d at 201; Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 296, ¶ 20 , 964 P.2d 491, 497 (App. 1998). 2016See Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 92, 859 P.2d at 201; Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 296, ¶ 20 , 964 P.2d 491, 497 (App. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physiciansgreen2 sentences2016See Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 92, 859 P.2d at 201; Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 296, ¶ 20 , 964 P.2d 491, 497 (App. 1998). 2016See Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 92, 859 P.2d at 201; Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 296, ¶ 20 , 964 P.2d 491, 497 (App. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.