Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc., 417 P.2d 382.

30 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix 651 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix 651 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
411 , Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Richards v. Simpson 531 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1975
Richards v. Simpson 531 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1975
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Stautz v. Pence 517 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Stautz v. Pence 517 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Herzberg v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 513 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Herzberg v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 513 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
93 , Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc., , ; and Abernethy v. Smith, 17 Ariz.App.
Abernethy v. Smith 498 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Abernethy v. Smith 498 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
This Court in Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc., , held: “Where the motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant points out an absence of facts sufficient to establish a claim for relief, the plaintiff may not rest upon the allegations of the complaint but must come forward with facts which meet the test of the rules sufficient to support th
Modla v. Parker 495 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Modla v. Parker 495 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Coldwell Banker & Co. Real Estate Brokers v. Potthoff 472 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Coldwell Banker & Co. Real Estate Brokers v. Potthoff 472 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The defendant-lessors rely heavily upon Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Kiser v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 449 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kiser v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 449 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
550 , Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 430 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 430 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation 425 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation 425 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
We hold that the legal principles are equally applicable where the moving party negatives the right to recovery through the statements of the plaintiffs and that when this situation is presented, the plaintiffs must come forward with “some proof to support the allegations in the pleadings.” In Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc., , we stated: “Where the motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant points out an absence of facts sufficient to establish a claim for relief, the plain
Butler v. Wehrley 425 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Butler v. Wehrley 425 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
And: “An offer which is given without consideration to the offeror can be withdrawn at any time prior to the acceptance by the offeree.” Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
McKinley v. Greyhound Park 423 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
McKinley v. Greyhound Park 423 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
We can consider only those matters which are presented to us. Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc.