Marcus v. Fox

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that § 12-341.01 applies to actions seeking to invalidate a contract based on fraudulent inducement
• holding that a claim for fraudulent inducement of a contract arose from a contract because plaintiffs “cause of action for tort could not have existed but for the fraudulently induced contract”
• explaining that matter arises from contract when there is “causal link between [a] claim and the underlying contract”
• holding that an award of fees is appropriate “ ‘as long as the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of the contract’ ” (quoting Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 132 Ariz. 529, 647 P.2d 1127, 1141 (1982))
• explaining that “fees are not appropriate based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction,” and there must be a “causal link between [the] claim and the underlying contract”
• remanding to the trial court “for further proceedings” to clarify the basis for its decision denying attorneys’ fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).