DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mountain State Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best-Way Transportation, 568 P.2d 430.

26 citing documents.

  • Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Mountain States Bolt, Nut & (“[P]arties have the legal right to make such contracts as they desire to make, provided only that the contract shall not be for illegal purposes or against public policy.” (quoting S. H. Kress & )).
  • Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    c policy.”); (“Recovery will be denied if the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy.”); (App. 1992) (“An agreement is unenforceable if the acts to be performed would be illegal or violate public policy.”); Mountain States Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best–Way Transp., (“[I]f the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy, or if the legislature has clearly demonstrated its intent to prohibit mainten
  • Murrell v. Tovar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Murrell v. Tovar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    P. 12(b)(6); Mountain States Bolt, Nut & (“[I]f the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy, or if the legislature has clearly demonstrated its intent to prohibit maintenance of a cause of action, then recovery should be denied.”).
  • Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Mountain States Bolt, Nut &
  • Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Mattox, , (“Recovery will be denied if the acts to be performed are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy.”); , (“An agreement is unenforceable if the acts to be performed would be illegal or violate public policy.”); Mountain States Bolt, Nut & , (“[I]f the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy, or if the legislature has clearly demonstrated its intent to prohibit maintenance of a cause of action, then recovery should be denied
  • Landi v. Arkules 835 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Landi v. Arkules 835 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Mountain States Bolt, Nut &amp
  • Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    In Gaertner , the court relied on Mountain States Bolt, Nut & , which involved certificates of convenience and necessity issued *169 by the Arizona Corporation Commission to regulated trucking companies.
  • Pioneer Annuity Life Insurance v. National Equity Life Insurance 765 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Pioneer Annuity Life Insurance v. National Equity Life Insurance 765 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    98 , and again in Mountain States Bolt, Nut &amp
  • Peterson v. Anderson 745 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Peterson v. Anderson 745 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    This court has stated that “if the acts to be performed under a contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy, or if the legislature has clearly demonstrated its intent to prohibit maintenance of an action, then recovery should be denied.” Mountain States Bolt, Nut & , see also Ruelas v. Ruelas, 7 Ariz.App.
  • Gaertner v. Sommer 714 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Gaertner v. Sommer 714 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    Mountain States Bolt, Nut &amp
  • Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 714 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 714 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    Mountain States Bolt, Nut &amp
  • White v. Mattox 619 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1980
  • White v. Mattox 619 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1980
    E & S , Mountain States Bolt
  • E & S Insulation Co. of Arizona, Inc. v. E. L. Jones Construction Co. 591 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • E & S Insulation Co. of Arizona, Inc. v. E. L. Jones Construction Co. 591 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    98 , and again in Mountain States Bolt, Nut &amp