Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., 678 P.2d 977.

56 citing documents.

Tiger v. Pennel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tiger v. Pennel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶9 We review de novo whether service was proper, ¶ 9 (App. 2018), but we defer to the superior court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., Inc.
Platte River v. Pekrul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Platte River v. Pekrul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
guage of the [agreement] is being used to lengthen” the limitations period and “is also at odds with the language in the limitations statute, 12-548.” “[P]arties are generally free to contract on whatever terms they choose,” Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, ¶ 1 (2022), but when “a contract is incompatible with a statute, the statute governs,”
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
This court, thus, “may draw its own legal conclusions from facts found or inferred in the judgment and is not bound by findings of fact on mixed questions of law and fact.” Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
Mountz v. Mountain Gate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mountz v. Mountain Gate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Hastings, Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶23 Citing Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., among many other contract authorities, James argues that implicit amendment of the actual language used in her settlement letter is required “[s]ince Arizona’s statutes are part of every contract, where a contract is incompatible with a statute, the statute governs.” (internal citations omitted).
National Tax v. Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
National Tax v. Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Bankers Life Ins., ), and we defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Ruffino, 245 Ariz. at 168, ¶ 9 (citing Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., ).
Ruffino v. Lokosky 425 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ruffino v. Lokosky 425 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., Inc. , , 401, , 982 (App. 1984).
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Danielson v. Ev *563 ans, ¶ 13 , Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
2208 ; Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., , (stating that a court may draw its own legal conclusions from facts found or inferred in the judgment and is not bound by findings of fact on mixed questions of law and fact).
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
See Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., , , 982 (App. 1984).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(quoting Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., , ).
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Thus, “where a contract is incompatible with a statute, the statute governs.” Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley 45 P.3d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley 45 P.3d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
In Re Robert A. 19 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Robert A. 19 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., Inc.
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 971 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 971 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor and Supply Co., Inc.
Passey v. Great Western Associates II 850 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Passey v. Great Western Associates II 850 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., Inc.
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A.R. Teeters & Associates, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. 836 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In reviewing the trial court’s findings on questions of law or mixed questions of law and fact, we are entitled to “draw [our] own legal conclusions from *329 facts found or inferred in the judgment of the trial court____” Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. 807 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. 807 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sears Consumer Financial Corp. v. Thunderbird Products 802 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sears Consumer Financial Corp. v. Thunderbird Products 802 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co.
City of Scottsdale v. Thomas 753 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
City of Scottsdale v. Thomas 753 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Tovrea Land & , Huskie v. Ames Brothers Motor & Supply Co.
Sleeseman v. State Board of Education 753 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Sleeseman v. State Board of Education 753 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Tovrea Land & , Huskie v. Ames Brothers Motor & Supply Co.
Focal Point, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Arizona, Inc. 746 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Focal Point, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Arizona, Inc. 746 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., , 2 Historically, tort law has drawn a distinction between mere interference with the chattel, and the “exercise of defend *320 ant’s hostile control over it.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222(A), Comment a, (1965), citing Fouldes v. Willoughby, 8 M. & W. 540, 151 Eng.Rep.