BIKE FASHION CORP., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee for Lorne Kramer; Southam Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; And Prospect Holdings, Ltd., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee and Successor in Interest of Dennis Porter, Syndicate Enterprises, Ltd., Donald Fast, Fast Holdings, Inc., and Harvey Gould (Or,) Alternatively, Those Persons Individually in the Event Assignments Were Ineffective, Individually, And, if Necessary, Derivatively on Behalf of the Bell 20/21 Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert F. KRAMER and Ann M. Kramer, Husband and Wife; Mount Royal Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Regis Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Freeport Financial Corp., an Arizona Corporation; Capital Development Corp., an Arizona Corporation; M.L. Sweeney; R.C. Romero; Alport Holdings, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Wardley Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; A.K. Basu; Thomas Kitching, Defendants-Appellees; Robert F. Kramer and Ann M. Kramer, Husband and Wife; Regis Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Mount Royal Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, v. Bike Fashion Corp., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee for Lorne Kramer; Southam Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; And Prospect Holdings, Ltd. an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee and Successor in Interest of Dennis Porter, Syndicate Enterprises, Ltd., Donald Fast, Fast Holdings, Inc., and Harvey Gould (Or,) Alternatively, Those Persons Individually in the Event Assignments Were Ineffective, Individually, And, if Necessary, Derivatively on Behalf of the Bell 20/21 Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellees [2002]

Version 1 of 4

Reference to BIKE FASHION CORP., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee for Lorne Kramer; Southam Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; And Prospect Holdings, Ltd., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee and Successor in Interest of Dennis Porter, Syndicate Enterprises, Ltd., Donald Fast, Fast Holdings, Inc., and Harvey Gould (Or,) Alternatively, Those Persons Individually in the Event Assignments Were Ineffective, Individually, And, if Necessary, Derivatively on Behalf of the Bell 20/21 Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert F. KRAMER and Ann M. Kramer, Husband and Wife; Mount Royal Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Regis Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Freeport Financial Corp., an Arizona Corporation; Capital Development Corp., an Arizona Corporation; M.L. Sweeney; R.C. Romero; Alport Holdings, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Wardley Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; A.K. Basu; Thomas Kitching, Defendants-Appellees; Robert F. Kramer and Ann M. Kramer, Husband and Wife; Regis Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Mount Royal Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, v. Bike Fashion Corp., an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee for Lorne Kramer; Southam Properties, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; And Prospect Holdings, Ltd. an Arizona Corporation, as Assignee and Successor in Interest of Dennis Porter, Syndicate Enterprises, Ltd., Donald Fast, Fast Holdings, Inc., and Harvey Gould (Or,) Alternatively, Those Persons Individually in the Event Assignments Were Ineffective, Individually, And, if Necessary, Derivatively on Behalf of the Bell 20/21 Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellees (46 P.3d 431) strengthens a Fashion Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Use this case as a source-verified research checkpoint rather than an invented rule statement. The ratio should be extracted from the linked opinion by identifying the legal test applied, the facts treated as decisive, and the court's stated reason for the outcome. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What Fashion Law issue does the source record raise, and how should a student verify the rule, holding, and factual trigger from the linked opinion? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.