Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C., 114 P.3d 835.

44 citing documents.

Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
L.L.C., ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
L.L.C., ¶ 34 (App. 2005), and a party must "plead and prove the statute of frauds for it to be available," Abner v. Ariz. Newspapers, Inc., ("A party may, undoubtedly, without trenching upon public policy, waive the defense .
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Double AA Builders, ¶ 41 (App. 2005) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence.”).
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Double AA Builders, ¶ 45 (App. 2005).
Designee v. Honda Aircraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Designee v. Honda Aircraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Double AA Builders, ¶¶ 44–45 (App. 2005).
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
LLC, -12, ¶¶ 45-48 (App. 2005) (promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy and A.R.S.
Mac Properties v. Dd Dunlap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Mac Properties v. Dd Dunlap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
L.L.C., ¶ 9 (App. 2005).
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
L.L.C., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).
Brimley v. Jirauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brimley v. Jirauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
L.L.C., ¶ 9 (App. 2005).
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
at 347, ¶ 13, and “[w]e must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses,” Double AA Builders, ¶ 41 (App. 2005).
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
L.L.C., ¶ 9 (App. 2005).
Oxford v. Landmarc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Oxford v. Landmarc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
L.L.C., ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
Pressly v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pressly v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
L.L.C., ¶ 9 (App. 2005).
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
L.L.C., (noting that, where no reason is given by the trial court, we presume the decision is supported and will affirm “if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it”) (citing Garden Lakes Comty.
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Double AA Builders, ¶ 9 (App. 2005).
Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
L.L.C., ¶ 41, (stating we give deference to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and will not reweigh the evidence on appeal); Father asserts in the “Conclusion” section of his opening brief that t
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
L.L.C., see also Kersten v. Cont’l Bank, (estoppel may afford relief if “some element necessary to the creation of an enforceable contract, such as consideration, is not present”).
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
LLC, ¶ 9 , (citing Garden Lakes Cmty.
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
L.L.C., ¶¶ 45, 48, 844 (App. 2005), where a promise has been made “which the promissor should reasonably foresee would cause the promisee to rely, [and] upon which the promisee actually relies to his detriment,” Contempo Constr.
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
L.L.C., ¶¶ 45, 48 , 844 (App.2005), where a promise has been made “which the promissor should reasonably foresee would cause the promisee to rely, [and] upon which the promisee actually relies to his detriment,” Contempo Constr.
Hurd v. Hurd 219 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hurd v. Hurd 219 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. 138 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. 138 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
P. 8(c), 12(h); Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Constr., LLC, ¶ 34 , , (noting an affirmative defense not specifically pled is waived); , (“Affirmative defenses are required to be pleaded to pre