Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Investment Corp., 631 P.2d 540.

28 citing documents.

Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., (citation omitted).
Clemente Ranch v. Johnstonbaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Clemente Ranch v. Johnstonbaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., (quoting Robert Childres & Stephen J. Spitz, Status in the Law of Contract, 47 N.Y.U.
Dunn v. Fastmed Urgent Care PC 424 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dunn v. Fastmed Urgent Care PC 424 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Corp. , , 392-93, , 547-48 (App. 1980) (holding that summary judgment and the exclusion of parol evidence was appropriate under the circumstances and facts of the case where the parties to the agreement were experienced in business transactions and the transaction was "relatively substantial and sophisticated").
Holcomb v. American Valet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holcomb v. American Valet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Corp., (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
Corp., P.2d 540 (App. 1980) (addressing whether the parol evidence rule bars evidence of fraud in the inducement); Universal Inv.
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Corp., , quoting Childres and Spitz, Status in the Law of Contract, 47 N.Y.U.
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
does not lie for a promise to do something in the future.” However, Arizona cases have recognized that a "promise, when made with a present intention not to perform it, is a misrepresentation which can give rise to an action of fraud.”
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Morrison v. Shanwick International Corp. 804 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Morrison v. Shanwick International Corp. 804 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Co., -89 , -44 (App.1980).
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Campbell v. Warren 726 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Campbell v. Warren 726 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rubenstein v. Sela 672 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Rubenstein v. Sela 672 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Arnold v. Cesare 668 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Arnold v. Cesare 668 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983