Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II, 87 P.3d 81.

28 citing documents.

Humphrey v. Swc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Humphrey v. Swc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 18 (App. 2004), abrogated on other grounds in Powell, 211 Ariz. at 556–57, ¶¶ 12–15.
Cundiff v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cundiff v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Book Ctrs., 225 Ariz. at 538-39, ¶ 18, 241 P.3d at 902-03 ( ¶ 21, ).
Pinnacle Peak v. Ramioulle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pinnacle Peak v. Ramioulle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 13 (App. 2004).2 ¶11 Use of the term "one story" in section 2.8 is strong evidence that the drafter intended the restriction to limit the number of stories in a home.
Cach v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cach v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Guthrie v. La Solana Care & Rehab, Inc., –21, ¶¶ 9–10, –10 (App. 2014); ¶ 11
Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 37 (App. 2004) (“When cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed, this court may evaluate the cross- motions and, if appropriate, remand with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of the appellants.”).
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 21 , (citing Riley v. Stoves, 22 Ariz.App.
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
‘When cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed, this court may evaluate the cross-motions and, if appropriate, remand with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of the appellants.” ¶ 37
Palmer v. Palmer 170 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Palmer v. Palmer 170 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶24 ‘When cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed, this court may evaluate the cross-motions and, if appropriate, remand with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of the appellants.” ¶ 37
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg 156 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg 156 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Camelback Del Este Homeowners Ass’n v. Warner, , ¶¶ 28-29 , (trial court erred by balancing hardships where party built structure knowing of restrictions and neighborhood opposition to structure).
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
See, e.g., Duffy, 124 Ariz. at 417, 604 P.2d at 1128; ¶ 13, (App. 2004) (stating that “[i]f the language of a restrictive covenant is judged to be ambiguous, it should be construed in favor of the free use of the land”) (citing Duffy, 124 Ariz. at 417, 604 P.2d at 1128)
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 11 , ("[W]hether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law that we review de novo.").
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Bldg., 175 Ariz. at 277 , 855 P.2d at 791 ; -97, ¶¶ 15-19 , -85 (App.2004).