Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thompson v. Harris, 452 P.2d 122.

34 citing documents.

Baker v. Ludeke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Baker v. Ludeke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Thompson v. Harris, this court noted the lack of any case in Arizona applying the right of quiet enjoyment to the activities of other tenants, but cited ten other jurisdictions that recognized that such a right “does not extend to acts of other tenants or third parties unless such acts are performed on behalf of the landlord or by one claiming paramount title.” (citations omitted).
Procaccianti v. Shaffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Procaccianti v. Shaffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. De Meo 254 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. De Meo 254 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Terry v. Gaslight Square Associates 897 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Terry v. Gaslight Square Associates 897 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 788 P.2d 1189 Ariz. 1990
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 788 P.2d 1189 Ariz. 1990
§ 6.76, at 393; , (recognizing the general rule that covenants in a lease are independent unless expressly made dependent, and that breach by one party gives rise only to a suit for damages).
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 780 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 780 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Rotary Club v. Chaprales Ramos De Pena 773 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Rotary Club v. Chaprales Ramos De Pena 773 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dillon-Malik, Inc. v. Wactor 728 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Dillon-Malik, Inc. v. Wactor 728 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
DVM CO. v. Bricker 672 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1983
DVM CO. v. Bricker 672 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1983
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. 671 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1983
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. 671 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1983
the trial court's award of attorney's fees was reversed on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the amount of fees awarded were "reasonable."
Cottonwood Plaza Associates v. Nordale 644 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Cottonwood Plaza Associates v. Nordale 644 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Daley v. Earven 639 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Daley v. Earven 639 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
31 A.L.R.2d 321 at 341 and cf.
Shirley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 607 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Shirley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 607 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 507 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 507 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Harris v. Thompson 500 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Harris v. Thompson 500 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Subsequently a motion for new trial was made and denied while the judge simultaneously granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike the counterclaim as being barred by collat•eral estoppel as a subsequent attack on a former Maricopa County Superior Court . , even though it was held to be a judgment of eviction rather than of forcible entry and detainer.
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Concannon v. Yewell 493 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
243 , , Hammontree v. Kenworthy, 1 Ariz.App.
Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Crosby v. Smith 475 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970