Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc., 493 P.2d 1220.

28 citing documents.

Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Transit Mix, Inc., this court stated “equitable estoppel is available only as a defense, [and] promissory estoppel [is] used as a cause of action for damages.” However, we also noted “[w]e can find no authority for the proposition that estoppel must be specifically plead as equitable or promissory estop
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Furthermore, this court in Tiffany Inc. v. W.M.K Transit Mix, Inc., , determined that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was applicable in a dispute involving a highway contractor and a sealcoat chip supplier, but barred recovery based on the statute of frauds.
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Roscoe-Gill v. Newman 937 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Roscoe-Gill v. Newman 937 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Kersten v. Continental Bank 628 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kersten v. Continental Bank 628 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Transit Mix, Inc., , , and Restatement of the Law of Contracts § 90 for discussions of this doctrine.
Johnson v. Gilbert 621 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Johnson v. Gilbert 621 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Ridgewood Development Co. v. State 294 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1980
Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 613 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 613 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
On the issue of promissory estoppel and the statute of frauds, see Tiffany, Inc. v. W. M. K. Transit Mix, Inc., , and Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of Remedies, Sec.
Granite State Insurance v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 573 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Granite State Insurance v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 573 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co. 539 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co. 539 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The litigation arising out of this default is reported in Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc.
Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell 230 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1975
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tiffany, Inc. v. W. M. K. Transit Mix, Inc.