Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm, 682 P.2d 457.

50 citing documents.

Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Monroe v. Az Acreage 443 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Monroe v. Az Acreage 443 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pi’Ikea, and Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co., addressed continuing guaranty agreements—unconditional promises to pay any debt that a borrower creates with a lender.
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
First Fidelity v. Toll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
First Fidelity v. Toll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roofing & ), we cannot ignore the express terms of the contracts freely entered into by the parties.
flash/schillinger v. Samons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
flash/schillinger v. Samons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roofing & Supply Co., Giovanelli v. First Fed.
Pi'ikea, LLC v. Williamson 321 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Pi'ikea, LLC v. Williamson 321 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Roofing & see also Restatement § 14 (standard contract rules apply to secondary obligations).
RACKMASTER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Maderia 193 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
RACKMASTER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Maderia 193 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
To support this conclusion, we cited Consolidated Roofing & , which held that a guaranty signed only by a husband could be enforced against his separate property but not against his wife or the marital community.
Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver 52 P.3d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver 52 P.3d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Consolidated Roofing &amp
Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick 3 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick 3 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Consolidated Roofing & , Arizona Feeds v. A. & R. Argo, Inc.
Citibank v. Van Velzer 982 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Citibank v. Van Velzer 982 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See Consolidated Roofing &amp
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Relying on Consolidated Roofing & , we held that the plain language of A.R.S.
Coconino County Public Defender v. Adams 908 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Coconino County Public Defender v. Adams 908 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Consolidated Roofing &amp
All-Way Leasing, Inc. v. Kelly 895 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
All-Way Leasing, Inc. v. Kelly 895 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Consolidated Roofing & , accord First Interstate v. Tatum and Bell Ctr.
Horizon Resources Bethany Ltd. v. Cutco Industries, Inc. 881 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Horizon Resources Bethany Ltd. v. Cutco Industries, Inc. 881 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Consolidated Roofing &amp
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
As posed, the question was correctly answered in the negative, relying on Consolidated Roofing &amp
Borchers v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 851 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Borchers v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 851 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Consolidated Roofing &amp
Zork Hardware Co. v. Gottlieb 821 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Zork Hardware Co. v. Gottlieb 821 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Consolidated Roofing &amp
First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Tatum & Bell Center Associates 821 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Tatum & Bell Center Associates 821 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Consolidated Roofing &amp
Westcor Co. Ltd. v. Pickering 794 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Westcor Co. Ltd. v. Pickering 794 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Consolidated Roofing &amp
Phoenix Arbor Plaza, Ltd. v. Dauderman 785 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Phoenix Arbor Plaza, Ltd. v. Dauderman 785 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
§ 25-214(C); Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co., -58 , -63 (App. 1984).
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Consolidated Roofing and Supply Co., , O’
Garn v. Garn 745 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Garn v. Garn 745 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
§ 25-214(0) was discussed by this court in Consolidated Roofing &amp
Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi 728 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1986
Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi 728 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1986
Consolidated Roofing &amp
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., Inc., , Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Levitz 716 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Levitz 716 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
and Consolidated Roofing & , because in neither of those cases was there evidence that the creditor knew that the failure to terminate the guaranty was an oversight on the guarantor’s part.