Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 888 P.2d 1375.

71 citing documents.

John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver 52 P.3d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The implied covenant “requires [that] ‘neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of their agreement.’ ” , quoting Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem.’l Hosp.
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
even when there is no contractual relationship between the parties at all”); Fry’s Food Stores, Inc. v. Mather and Assocs., Inc., -92 , -28 (1995) (a suit for negligent construction resulting in property damage arose from tort, not contract); , (claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress did not arise out of insurance contract); Bar J , (“The duty not to interfere with the contract of another arises out of law, not contract.”); Western Techs., In
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
plaintiffs argue that we review such a ruling for an abuse of discretion.
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, , are as follows: Appellant Daymon Stephens (Stephens) was hired to drive a load of grocery products from Salt Lake City to Appellee Bashas’ (Bashas) warehouse on 35th Avenue south of Buckeye Road in Phoenix.
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
10 , (reversing summary judgment on contract claims because record showed material fact issues); see generally *165 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on § 127 (2d ed. 1961 & Supp.1994) (noting that courts normally do not question the adequacy of consideration).