Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a fraud claim cannot “be predicated on unfulfilled promises, expressions of intention of statements concerning future events unless such were made with the present intent not to perform”
• stating 13 that a fraud claim cannot “be predicated on unfulfilled promises, expressions of intention 14 of statements concerning future events unless such were made with the present intent not 15 to perform.”
• “[T]he courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to the pleading when [Rule 9(b)] is violated.”
• purpose of particularity requirement is to avoid surprise at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

• McAlister v. Citibank
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-04-16· cited 90×
• Steinberger v. McVey
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2014-01-30· cited 67×
• Hall v. Romero
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-02-23· cited 60×
• Arnold & Associates, Inc. v. Misys Healthcare Systems
  D. Arizona· 2003-08-04· cited 30×
• Day v. LSI Corp.
  D. Arizona· 2016-03-29· cited 28×
• Thomas v. Goudreault
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-10-10· cited 27×
• Honolulu Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Murphy
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1988-02-12· cited 24×
• Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1986-07-23· cited 24×
• Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-02-06· cited 19×
• Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation v. KROETER
  D. Arizona· 2010-03-15· cited 15×
• Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2013-10-17· cited 14×
• In Re Jackson National Life Insurance Co. Premium Litigation
  W.D. Michigan· 2000-07-05· cited 9×
• Western Chance No. 2, Inc. v. KFC Corp.
  D. Arizona· 1990-01-31· cited 3×
• J-Squared Technologies, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2005-04-13· cited 1×
• Unnamed case
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-02-28
• Seikaly & Stewart, P.C. v. Fairley
  D. Arizona· 2014-05-13

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Trollope v. Koerner
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1970-05-29· cited 74×
• Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-02-22· cited 60×
• Barnes v. Lopez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1976-01-14· cited 38×
• Staheli v. Kauffman
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1979-05-10· cited 26×
• Wilson v. Byrd
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1955-10-18· cited 23×
• Apolito v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1966-05-26· cited 21×
• Sun Lodge, Inc. v. Ramada Development Co.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-12-20· cited 20×
• Newmark v. H & H Products Manufacturing Co.
  California Court of Appeal· 1954-10-08· cited 14×
• In Re Cassidy's Estate
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1954-06-01· cited 13×
• Fifty Associates v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
  Ninth Circuit· 1971-12-27· cited 12×
• Springer v. Bank of Douglas
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1957-06-25· cited 12×
• Han v. Horwitz
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1965-11-17· cited 11×
• Page Investment Company v. Staley
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1970-04-29· cited 10×
• Denbo v. Badger
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-11-21· cited 9×
• Combs v. Lufkin
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-05-23· cited 9×
• Dowdle v. Young
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1965-05-10· cited 9×
• Fruth v. Divito
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1976-03-11· cited 7×
• Wallace v. Dave Hansen Construction Co.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-02-22· cited 2×

Other cases named Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-02-06· cited 19×
• Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-02-06· cited 2×