# State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County

> Arizona Supreme Court · June 18, 1979 · 123 Ariz. 324

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629190

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission, the Department of Insurance of the State of Arizona, Et Al., Petitioners, v. the SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY, the Honorable Philip W. Marquardt, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa, Richard Davis, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 18, 1979
- **Citations:** 123 Ariz. 324; 599 P.2d 777; 1979 Ariz. LEXIS 295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Gordon
- **Judges:** Cameron, Gordon, Hays, Holohan, Struckmeyer
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by State v. Gunnison, 127 Ariz. 110 (1980).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629190

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Corporation Commission liable for rescission damages for misleading statements regarding regulation of insolvent corporation, which “induced” investors to purchase securities

## Opinion text

REHEARING DENIED
GORDON, Justice:
In our opinion in State v. Superior Court, 123 Ariz. 324 , 599 P.2d 777 (1979), we denied a motion to dismiss Counts I and II of plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that Count I adequately stated a cause of action pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1991 and that Count II adequately asserted that the defendants aided and abetted others in violating A.R.S. § 14-1991. In light of this Court’s recent adoption of the Court of Appeals opinion in Greenfield v. Cheek, 122 Ariz. 70 , 593 P.2d 293 (App.1978); Greenfield v. Cheek, 122 Ariz. 57 , 593 P.2d 280 (1979), Counts I and II of plaintiffs’ complaint are dismissed with leave to amend. Language to the contrary in State v. Superior Court, supra, is hereby vacated.
The complaint was filed in November of 1977. The law in Arizona at that time was that scienter was not a necessary element of a cause of action based upon A.R.S. § 44-1991. See Washington National Corp. v. Thomas, 117 Ariz. 95 , 570 P.2d 1268 (App. 1977); Baker v. Walston & Co., Inc., 7 Ariz. App. 590 , 442 P.2d 148 (1968). Washington National, supra, and Baker, supra, were, however, recently overruled by this Court in Greenfield, supra, which held that scienter is a necessary element of A.R.S. § 44-1991.
Because Counts I and II do not assert that the defendants knew their statements were false and acted with an intent to deceive, scienter has not been alleged. See, Greenfield, supra. Counts I and II are, therefore, dismissed with leave to amend the pleadings to conform with the current status of the law.
In view of the modifications of the original opinion made herein, the motion for rehearing is denied.
CAMERON, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629190. Public record. Not legal advice.