DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Landi v. Arkules, 835 P.2d 458.

40 citing documents.

  • Durable Investments LLC v. Steve Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
  • Durable Investments LLC v. Steve Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
    -35 (App. 1992) (voiding agreement that operated as payment for unlicensed private investigator services).
  • Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (citing authority) (noting, under Arizona law, “[q]uantum meruit is actually a measure of damages, not a remedy”).
  • Beus Gilbert v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Beus Gilbert v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶12 The Williamses have not shown that the arbitration agreement requires the performance of acts that “would be illegal or violate public policy.” (citation omitted).
  • Ricotta v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ricotta v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    We are not bound by the superior court’s determinations as to matters of law, and we review questions of law de novo, Do by Minker v. Farmers Ins.
  • Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7 (2008) (“Contract provisions are unenforceable if they violate legislation or other identifiable public policy.”); (“Recovery will be denied if the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy.”); (App. 1992) (“An agreement is unenforceable if the acts to be performed would be illegal or violate public policy.”); Mountain States Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best–Way Transp., (“[I]f the acts to be performed u
  • Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    to support its argument that contracts are unenforceable and “illegal” in Arizona when one party was not properly licensed during performance under a contract.
  • Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Levine v. Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & Mcanally, P. L.C. 418 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Levine v. Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & Mcanally, P. L.C. 418 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Landi v. Arkules , , 136, , 468 (App. 1992) ; see also Mousa v. Saba , , 587, ¶ 27, , 1044 (App. 2009) (denying the plaintiff recovery in unjust enrichment for performance of illegal broker services); Peterson v. Anderson , , 113, , 171 (App. 1987) (denying recovery for
  • ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“An agreement is unenforceable if the acts to be performed would be illegal or violate public policy.”).
  • Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7 , (“Contract provisions are unenforceable if they violate legislation or other identifiable public policy.”); , (“Recovery will be denied if the acts to be performed are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy.”); , (“An agreement is unenforceable if the acts to be performed would be illegal or violate public policy.”); Mountain States Bolt, Nut & , (“[I]f the acts to be performed under the contract are themselve
  • Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    The claim for relief is for unjust enrichment.”
  • 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
  • Mousa v. Saba 218 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Mousa v. Saba 218 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (equitable relief is not permitted when contract is unenforceable because it is illegal or violative of public policy).
  • DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Jackson v. Chandler 61 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2003
  • Jackson v. Chandler 61 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2003
    See DeLoach, 192 Ariz. at 33 ¶ 19, 960 P.2d at 633 ¶ 19; (“Arizona has a basic public policy interest in regulating conduct within its borders.”); Brandler, 154 Ariz. at 99, 740 P.2d at 961 (Arizona has substantial interest in deterring “future tortious conduct”); see also Ledesma, 816 F.2d at 486; Hurtado, 522 P.2d at 672.
  • Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    ¶ 12 Allstate nonetheless argues that “to the extent [Lisa’s admission form] is construed as attempting to waive the protections of [subsections A through C], it is void and unenforceable,” P.2d 458 (App.1992).
  • Pelletier v. Johnson 937 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Pelletier v. Johnson 937 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    Unlike the “heir finder” , G & B’s contract for the sale and installation of vinyl siding did not involve performance of any “unlawful aet[s],” id.