Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McClellan Mortgage Co. v. Storey, 704 P.2d 826.

28 citing documents.

First Fidelity v. Toll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
First Fidelity v. Toll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-88, -29 (App. 1985) (distinguishing between guaranty and surety as follows: “‘[t]he surety is a 4 We have previously held that the “other liabilities” referenced in A.R.S.
flash/schillinger v. Samons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
flash/schillinger v. Samons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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
(finding unambiguous waiver of suretyship defense and noting “[i]t is well settled that most rights may be waived”); (“Statutory provisions enacted for the benefit of individuals may be so far waived by those for whos
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-88, -29 (App. 1985), Data Sales concluded “suretyship defenses” also apply to guarantors, ¶¶ 1, 14-16, 27, 74 P.3d at 269, 272, 274.
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(“It is well settled that most rights may be waived.”).
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(“It is well settled that most rights may be waived.”); , (generally, when a non-breaching party to a contract allows a breaching party to perform, the non-breaching party waives the breach); State v. Munoz, 104 Conn.
Simpson v. Simpson 229 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simpson v. Simpson 229 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(holding generally that rights may be waived).
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“It is well settled that most rights may be waived.” , (citing Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App.
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-57 (1957) (procedural rule requiring a creditor to provide a detailed accounting in order to recover on an open account is for private benefit of debtor and may be waived by debtor); , (guarantors could *116 waive an affirmative statutory defense enacted for their benefit in order to receive a loan); In re Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App.
Indian Village Shopping Center Investment Co. v. Kroger Co. 854 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Indian Village Shopping Center Investment Co. v. Kroger Co. 854 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Indian Village claims, however, , : “[A] ‘guarantor’ would never be a ‘surety’ under the normal meaning of these terms.” In Storey , appellant argued that guarantors were not covered by Arizona’s suretyship statutes, A.R.S.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by