Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rand v. Porsche Financial Services, 167 P.3d 111.

46 citing documents.

Covington v. Neumann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Covington v. Neumann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Servs., ¶ 37 (App. 2007) (noting contract interpretation is a question of law).
Mayhall v. Mayhall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mayhall v. Mayhall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Servs., ¶ 37 (App. 2007) (noting contract interpretation is a question of law); ¶ 8 (App. 2023) (noting the enforceability of a premarital agreement is reviewed de novo).
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Servs., ¶ 37 (App. 2007).
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 36, , 121 (App. 2007), such duties do not extend to the employees of those contractors, Sullins v. Third & Catalina Constr.
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Servs., ¶ 42 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
Earle Investments, LLC v. Southern Desert Medical Center Partners 394 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Earle Investments, LLC v. Southern Desert Medical Center Partners 394 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Servs., ¶ 37 (App. 2007).
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Servs., ¶ 37 (App. 2007).
Estate of Butwin v. Estate of Butwin 371 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Estate of Butwin v. Estate of Butwin 371 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Servs., ¶ 15 (App. 2007).
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Servs., ¶ 37, (“The interpretation of a contract is a question of law, which we review de novo.”) When reviewing a contract, it “must be read as a whole in order to give a reasonable and harmonious meaning and effect to all of its provisions.” Nichols v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Van Baalen v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Van Baalen v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Servs., ¶ 15, (recognizing that, in reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment).
Tbf Financial v. Devens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tbf Financial v. Devens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robertson v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robertson v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Servs., n.8, ¶ 39, n.8 (App. 2007) (noting that arguments not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal).
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Servs., n.8, ¶ 39, n.8 (App. 2007) (noting that arguments not raised at the trial court are waived on appeal).
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Servs., ¶ 20 , (“Absent a showing that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion need not even respond, and the failure to respond cannot in itself entitle the moving party to summary judgment.”); , 805 P
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Servs., 216 Ariz. 424, ¶ 37
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Servs., (interpretation of contract question of law); In re Reymundo F., 217 Ariz. 588, ¶ 5, (“interpretation of statutes and rules are questions of law”).
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Servs., n.8, n.8 (App. 2007) (appellate court does not consider arguments not first presented to trial court).