Legal Opinion
Sato v. Van Denburgh
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided June 28, 1979No. 14169PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAMERON, Chief Justice.
Carl and Susie Sato appeal from a summary judgment entered against them and in favor of Robert P. Van-Denburgh and three accounting firms with which he had been associated. We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Rule 19(e), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S.
We must address only one question on appeal: Was Sato’s cause of action barred by the statute of limitations?
The facts necessary for a resolution of this appeal and presented in a light most favorable to appellants Sato, Western Asbestos Co. v. Cal-Zona, 121 Ariz. 388, 590 P.2d 927 (1979), are as…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Atkins v. CroslandTexas Supreme Court · 1967
- Isaacson, Stolper & Co. v. Artisan's Savings BankSupreme Court of Delaware · 1974
- Moonie v. LynchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Morrison v. ActonArizona Supreme Court · 1948
- Carr v. LipshieNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Kenyon v. HammerArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners ADArizona Supreme Court · 1987
- Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaArizona Supreme Court · 1995
- Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.