Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., 880 P.2d 648.

33 citing documents.

McGrew v. Brunet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
McGrew v. Brunet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
§ 33-1315(A)(2) (holding a summary forcible detainer action cannot be used to “determine the existence of a rental agreement between the parties”); Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., -34 (App. 1993) (whether the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship cannot be properly determined in a summary proceeding).
Mullen v. Mullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mullen v. Mullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 12 (App. 2017) (plaintiff has burden to show “a superior right of possession to the property”); Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., (plaintiff must show existence of a lease).
Ncr Investments v. Maxfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
NCR INVESTMENTS v. MAXFIELD Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶12 “Forcible entry and detainer is a statutory proceeding whose object is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.” Colonial Tri- City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
Voliner v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Voliner v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶12 The purpose of a forcible detainer action is “to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of [a] premises.” Colonial Tri-City Ltd. v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
Ely v. Ely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ely v. Ely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶19 A forcible detainer action “is a statutory proceeding whose object is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.” Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
Steinfelt v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Steinfelt v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶10 “Forcible entry and detainer is a statutory proceeding whose object is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.” Colonial Tri- City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Colonial Tri- City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., (“[C]laims and counterclaims for damages for breach of a lease .
US Bank v. Lietz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
US Bank v. Lietz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
Colosi v. Nacim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Colosi v. Nacim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Nacim's principal case, Colonial Tri-City Ltd. v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., the owner of a shopping mall filed a forcible detainer action against a former tenant that, with the landlord's consent, had assigned the lease to another merchant.
Deutsche Bank v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Deutsche Bank v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
He first relied on Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., P.2d 648 (App. 1993).
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 111 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 111 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., -25 , -26 (App.1997) (citing Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., , ).
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm 101 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm 101 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., , (A forcible-detainer suit cannot “be used to determine the existence of a rental agreement between the parties.”); Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., , (“[W]hether the parties have created a landlord and tenant relationship is ...
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. 88 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. 88 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co., -25 , -26 (App.1997) (citing Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., , ).
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc.
Rreef Management Co. v. Camex Productions, Inc. 945 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Rreef Management Co. v. Camex Productions, Inc. 945 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Relying on our recent decision in Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., , the Defendant in this forcible detainer action argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction because a question of fact existed as to whether Defendant actually had a lease with the property owner.
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben *125 Franklin Stores, Inc.