Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant, 272 P.3d 355.

76 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Mh 2022-006131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Canon v. Retail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Mh 2022-006131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
8 GIPSON v. SHINNICK, et al. Opinion of the Court ¶ 36 (App. 2012); Schwartz v. Farmers Ins.
Canon v. Retail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“One of the remedies available at common law upon a material breach of contract is the right to cease performance and recover the profits which would have been made had the entire contract been performed.”); accord Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP, v. Sourant, ¶ 33 (App. 2012).
Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33 (App. 2012) (“[A]n uncured material breach of contract relieves the non-breaching party from the duty to perform and can discharge that party from the contract.”).
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 33 (App. 2012); see also Restatement § 243 cmt.
Beaumont v. Beaumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Beaumont v. Beaumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Murphy Farrell Dev., -35, ¶ 38 (App. 2012) (as amended) (“Applying the ‘totality of the litigation test,’ we conclude neither party is the ‘successful party’ on appeal entitled to taxable costs as both were successful and unsuccessful in equal measure.”); A.R.S.
Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Church, ¶ 41 (App. 2010), but they lack "discretion to deny a fee award required by the terms of the parties' contract," Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 32 (App. 2012).
Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Panto v. Sines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, e.g., Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 32 (App. 2012).
Anthem Parkside v. Chabrowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Anthem Parkside v. Chabrowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 31 (App. 2012).
In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
In Re the Marriage of Rojas 530 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Hameed v. Isho Petroleum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hameed v. Isho Petroleum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 31 (App. 2012).
Naumann v. Benefit Strategies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Naumann v. Benefit Strategies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 38 (App. 2012).
Andrea F., Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Andrea F., Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Murphey Farrell Dev., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Risas Holdings v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 31 (App. 2012).
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
Zaki v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Zaki v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33 (App. 2012) (“[A]n uncured material breach of contract relieves the non-breaching party from the duty to perform and can discharge that party from the contract.”); (“Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while colle
Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Murphy Farrell Dev., -35, ¶ 38 (App. 2012).
Thieme v. Szewczyk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thieme v. Szewczyk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33 (App. 2012) (uncured material breach of contract relieves non-breaching party from duty to perform and can discharge that party from the contract).
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33 (App. 2012).
Haworth v. Ligon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Haworth v. Ligon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 24 (App. 2012).
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Miller, 175 Ariz. at 299 (citations omitted); see also Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (recognizing that whether a court has made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law is a mixed question of fact and law that we review de novo).
Sirrah Enterprises LLC v. Wayne Wunderlich Et Ux 399 P.3d 89 Ariz. 2017
Sirrah Enterprises LLC v. Wayne Wunderlich Et Ux 399 P.3d 89 Ariz. 2017
See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 31 (App. 2012).
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 35 (App. 2012).
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
Power Products, Inc., 1 CA-CV 12-0855, at *3 ¶¶ 5-6; see Murphy Farrell Dev., , 132 ¶ 30 & n.8, 134 ¶ 36, , 364 & n.8, 365 (App. 2012) (relying on cases decided under § 12-341.01 in determining which party was “the ‘prevailing party 1 under the terms of the [parties’] Agreements” when those contracts mandated an award of fees to the “prevailing party” but did not define tha