DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones, 375 P.3d 1173.

38 citing documents.

  • Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Ariz., ¶ 45 (App. 2016).
  • Litmath v. US Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Litmath v. US Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Keg Restaurants Ariz., ¶ 31 (App. 2016) (“[W]hen a subsidiary corporation is merely the parent corporation’s alter ego and when observing the corporate form would work an injustice, a court may properly ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and hold the parent corporation liable for the acts of its subsidiary.”).
  • Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Ariz., ¶ 31 (App. 2016).
  • Electronic Payment v. Kennedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Electronic Payment v. Kennedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Ariz., ¶ 45 (App. 2016).
  • Hargrave v. Select Portfolio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Hargrave v. Select Portfolio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Ariz., ¶ 45 (App. 2016); see also Wells Fargo Bank, 201 Ariz. at 20, ¶ 14.
  • Specialty Companies Group v. Meritage Homes Ariz. 2021
  • Specialty Companies Group v. Meritage Homes Ariz. 2021
    Ariz., ¶ 31 (App. 2016).
  • Harris v. Mathews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Harris v. Mathews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Ariz., ¶ 45 (App. 2016) (quoting Beaudry v. Ins.
  • Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Ariz., ¶ 45 (App. 2016).
  • Carroll v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Carroll v. Carroll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Keg Restaurants Ariz., Inc., v. Jones, ¶ 43 (App. 2016).
  • Emp v. Prieto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Emp v. Prieto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Ariz., ¶ 31 (App. 2016) (“A corporation will be treated as a separate entity unless sufficient reason appears to disregard the corporate form.”).
  • Nationstar v. Magnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Nationstar v. Magnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    "A party breaches the covenant 'by exercising express discretion in a way inconsistent with a party's reasonable expectations and by acting in ways not expressly excluded by the contract's terms but which nevertheless bear adversely on the party's reasonably expected benefits of the bargain.'" Keg Restaurants Arizona, ¶ 45 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2002)).
  • Lagerman v. Asrs 438 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Lagerman v. Asrs 438 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Ariz., ¶ 45 (App. 2016).
  • Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Keg Restaurants Ariz., ¶ 50 (App. 2016); see also Gonzalez, 193 Ariz. at 20, ¶ 7 (stating an instruction is correct when, “considering the instructions as a whole, the jury was properly guided in arriving at a correct decision”).
  • John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ariz., Inc. v. Jones , , 73, ¶ 31, , 1182 (App. 2016).
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶11 Although contract interpretation is a question of law that this court reviews de novo, Callaway, 226 Ariz. at 290 ¶ 15, whether a party has breached a contract is a factual matter, see Keg Restaurants Arizona
  • Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Ariz., ¶ 43 (App. 2016) (“[Contractual] consideration need not be of like or identical value, and the court will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.”) (quoting Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2011)).
  • Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    And “money is not always required as consideration.” Keg Restaurants Arizona
  • Ida v. Leach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Ida v. Leach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ariz., ¶ 38 (App. 2016) (“A fraud or injustice arises if observance of the corporate form would confuse the opposing parties and frustrate their efforts to protect their rights, while allowing the party responsible to evade liability.”).
  • Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    On this point we do not agree with, and do not follow Keg Restaurants Ariz., , , 2016 WL 3101794 (App. 2016)