Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pasco Industries, Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., 985 P.2d 535.

27 citing documents.

Bowyer v. Bowyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Sanford v. Dna Investments Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanford v. Dna Investments Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶ 52 (App. 1998).
Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, e.g., Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶¶ 56-59 (App. 1998).
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., -61, ¶¶ 22-49 (App. 1998) (explaining how the elements of a monopolization claim may be proven).
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, e.g., Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶¶ 51-52, (stating that, although the issue of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law, “[i]f a contract is ambiguous, the parties may offer evidence to help interpret it, and the construction thus becomes a question for the jury”).
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶ 52 (App. 1998).
Focus point/kantor v. johnson/oak Acres 330 P.3d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Focus point/kantor v. johnson/oak Acres 330 P.3d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶ 52
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶28 Thus, to the extent the Laoses rely on Pasco Industries, Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶¶ 72-74, for the proposition that a plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same wrong, those cases are inapposite because Munic has recovered for different wrongs.
Hanson v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. 162 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hanson v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. 162 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶ 51
Citizens Telecommunications Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 75 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Citizens Telecommunications Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 75 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
To buttress this argument, they invoke Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc.
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC 75 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2003
Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa Ariz. 2003
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC 75 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2003
(relying on federal cases to judge whether the defendant’s conduct violated the antitrust law); Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶ 25 , (looking to federal law for the standard to determine whether an antitrust defendant possessed monopoly powers); Wedgewood Inv.
Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa Ariz. 2003
(relying on federal cases to judge whether the defendant’s conduct violated the antitrust law); Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶ 25, (looking to federal law for the standard to determine whether an antitrust defendant possessed monopoly powers); Wedgewood Inv.
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
§ 44-1402); Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., , (analyzing requirements necessary to prove violation of A.R.S.
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., ¶54