Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Advance Leasing & Crane Co. v. Del E. Webb Corp., 573 P.2d 525.

32 citing documents.

Coyote v. Icon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Coyote v. Icon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at 531 (“[T]he doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application to the owner where an explicit contract exists between the [plaintiff] and the prime contractor.”) ().
TM2008 Investments, Inc. v. Procon Capital Corp. 323 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
TM2008 Investments, Inc. v. Procon Capital Corp. 323 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Copper Co., P.2d 327 (App. 1984); Advance Leasing & P.2d 525 (App. 1977).
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Copper Co., -31 , -30 (App.1984); Advance Leasing &amp
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Copper Co., , Advance Leasing & -53 , -27 (App.1977), and Restatement of Restitution § 110 (1937).
Trio Forest Products, Inc. v. FNF Construction, Inc. 893 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Trio Forest Products, Inc. v. FNF Construction, Inc. 893 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Advance Leasing & Crane Co., , cf. Ray Electric, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual), , (court looks at elements such as who exercises control to determine contractual chain for Little Miller Act purposes).
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Creative Learning Systems, Inc. v. State 800 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Creative Learning Systems, Inc. v. State 800 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Advance Leasing & Crane Co.
A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker 786 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker 786 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
A similar result obtained in Advance Leasing &amp
Flooring Systems, Inc. v. Radisson Group, Inc. 772 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1989
Flooring Systems, Inc. v. Radisson Group, Inc. 772 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1989
Copper Co., , and Advance Leasing &amp
Ray Electric, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co. 758 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Ray Electric, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co. 758 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Advance Leasing & , this court held that a second-tier materialman had no claim on the prime contractor’s payment bond.
Commercial Cornice & Millwork, Inc. v. Camel Construction Services. Corp. 739 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Commercial Cornice & Millwork, Inc. v. Camel Construction Services. Corp. 739 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Advance Leasing & Crane Co., , a subcontractor sought recovery from an owner based on the theory of quantum meruit.
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs 724 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs 724 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See, e.g., Advance Leasing & Crane Co., , State Tax Commission v. Oliver’s Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, 19 Ariz.App.
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Furthermore, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application to the owner where an explicit contract exists between the subcontractor and the prime contractor
National Sales & Service Co. v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1983
National Sales & Service Co. v. Superior Court 667 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1983
Ruck Corp. v. Woudenberg 611 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Ruck Corp. v. Woudenberg 611 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Construction Co. 597 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Construction Co. 597 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Advance Leasing & Crane Co.