Cited by

are governed by general contract principles.” ¶ 14 (App. 1998).

Ct., ¶¶ 11, 14 (App. 1998).

We review de novo the enforceability of a settlement agreement, ¶ 8 (2015), using general principles of contract interpretation, ¶ 14 (App. 1998).

See, –83, ¶¶ 22–31 (App. 2007); –14, ¶¶ 9–23 (App. 1998); Republic Nat.

of Maricopa, ¶ 14 (App. 1998) (“Construction and enforcement of settlement agreements .

C. Enforceability of the Settlement Agreement ¶23 the State also argues the superior court erred in setting aside the stipulated judgment without first determining the enforceability of the underlying settlement agreement.

¶ 14 (App. 1998) (citing Hisel v. Upchurch, 797 F. Supp. 1509, 1517 (D. Ariz. 1992)).

¶ 7 (App. 2000) ( ¶ 15 (App. 1998)).

Emmons v. Superior Court In & For County of Maricopa

“Construction and enforcement of settlement agreements, including determinations as to the validity and scope of release terms, are governed by general contract principles.” ¶ 14, (citations omitted).

¶ 14 , (holding, in a case not involving the enforceability of a settlement agreement under a court rule, that "enforcement of settlement agreements .

Ct., ¶ 11 , ); , (“[S]ound legal policy ought to favor compromise and settlement over litigation.”); cf. Ariz. R. Evid.

¶56 In Arizona, a plaintiff may bring an action against a workers’ compensation lien holder for violating the duty of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably withholding Superior Court, (“Construction and enforcement of settlement agreements .

P.2d 582 (App. 1998); P.2d 572 (1970).