DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

76 citing documents.

  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33, (“[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.” (citations omitted)).
  • ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “[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.” Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33
  • Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Murphy Farrell Development, ¶ 33 (App. 2012) (noting “that an uncured material breach of contract relieves the non-breaching party from the duty to perform and can discharge that party from the contract”) (citing authority).
  • Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Murphy Farrell Dev., -35, ¶ 38 (App. 2012) (declining to award to costs to either party when neither was successful on appeal).
  • Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    at ¶ 107; Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 23 (App. 2012) (as amended); see also Pioneer Annuity Life Ins.
  • Sirrah Enterprises, LLC v. Wunderlich 377 P.3d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sirrah Enterprises, LLC v. Wunderlich 377 P.3d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 31
  • Marsh v. Mayer 361 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Marsh v. Mayer 361 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    And as we have recognized, a constructive trust is a form of “other relief.” See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 23, (citing cases; “constructive trust is an equitable remedy”); see infra ¶ 30.
  • Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc. 340 P.3d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc. 340 P.3d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Murphy Farrell Development, ¶ 33 , (“[A]n uneured material breach of contract relieves the non-breaching party from the duty to perform and can discharge that party from the contract”).
  • Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Ocean West Contractors, but see Murphy Farrell Development, ¶ 36, (noting that trial courts “may use a ‘percentage of success’ factor or a ‘totality of the litigation’ rubric to determine which party prevailed” when the “net judgment rule” is inapplicable).
  • ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    to prevent the title holder from continuing to reap the benefits of ownership.” Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 23
  • Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Murphy Farrell Dev., -35, ¶ 38, -66 (App. 2012).
  • Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    v. Sourant, -29, ¶¶ 13-17 , -60 (App.2012) (remanding for failure to separately address each of the disputed issues in findings); see also Miller, 175 Ariz. at 299 , 855 P.2d at 1360 (finding court erred in failing to issue findings sufficiently detailed for the appellate court to test the validity of the tri
  • Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See Murphy Farrell *328 Dev., ¶ 38