Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners, 909 P.2d 393.

29 citing documents.

Talking Rock v. Inscription Canyon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Talking Rock v. Inscription Canyon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶37 “A contract should be construed to give effect to all its provisions.”
Jurju v. Ile 534 P.3d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Jurju v. Ile 534 P.3d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶18 “An injunction is an equitable remedy, which allows the court to structure the remedy so as to promote equity between the parties.”
Glendale v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Glendale v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[A] contract should be construed to give effect to all its provisions and to prevent any of the provisions from being rendered meaningless.”).
Aloha Grading v. Schultz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Aloha Grading v. Schultz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Desert Mountain v. Graham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Desert Mountain v. Graham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(“[W]hile a ‘restrictive covenant’ forbids or requires certain uses of the real property which it covers, it also confers vested rights in those owners who desire to own property where the subject uses are either required or forbidden.” (citation omitted)).
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 9 , supports our conclusion.
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
("[A] contract should be construed to give effect to all its provisions and to prevent any of the provisions from being rendered meaningless."); Norman, 156 Ariz. at 428 , 752 P.2d at 517 ("[W]e do not construe one provision in a contract so as to render another provision meaningles
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
The discretion in injunctive proceedings lies with the tidal court, not the reviewing court.”
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 11 , ("[W]hether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law that we review de novo.").
Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver 52 P.3d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Turner 2 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Turner 2 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 9 “An injunction is an equitable remedy which allows the court to structure the remedy so as to promote equity between the parties.” , (supplemental opinion); see also Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, , (“Not only is the trial court in a better position than this court to weigh the equities and fashion the appropriate equitable relief, but it can also require the parties to develop a factual record on which to base its decision”).