Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper, 538 P.2d 389.
- Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Caruthers v. Underhill
326 P.3d 268
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Edward Greenband Enters, , (citation omitted); see also 3 Dobbs § 12.7(6), at 187 (observing that a pre-verdict election may force plaintiffs to a “blind choice”).
- Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Rudinsky v. Harris
290 P.3d 1218
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-14 (1949); Edward Greenband Enters.
- S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
-
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
851 P.2d 839
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Appellant quite correctly states that the Statute of Frauds applies only to oral contracts in which there is not the “slightest possibility” that the contract could be performed within one year
- Tempe Corporate Office Building v. Arizona Funding Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-
Tempe Corporate Office Building v. Arizona Funding Services, Inc.
807 P.2d 1130
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rule 8(f)(2), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
- Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Vinson v. Marton & Associates 764 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Vinson v. Marton & Associates 764 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Canton v. Monaco Partnership 753 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Canton v. Monaco Partnership 753 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- Bahman v. Estes Homes 710 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Bahman v. Estes Homes 710 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
-
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris
723 P.2d 696
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
The purpose of the rule is to allow a plaintiff to take advantage of every possible development in the evidence which would entitle him to recovery “and thus prevent his being forced to elect in advance and at his peril which theory he will proceed upon.” Edward Greenband *352
- Marcus v. Fox 723 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Marcus v. Fox 723 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Phillips v. Adler 657 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Phillips v. Adler 657 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Mammas v. Oro Valley Townhouses, Inc. 638 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- Mammas v. Oro Valley Townhouses, Inc. 638 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- Earven v. Smith 621 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
-
Earven v. Smith
621 P.2d 41
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Relying on this rule, our Supreme Court has stated that “a person cannot be forced to elect in advance at his peril upon what theory or remedy he will proceed until the conclusion of the trial.”
- Sun Lodge, Inc. v. Ramada Development Co. 606 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Sun Lodge, Inc. v. Ramada Development Co. 606 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. 606 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. 606 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- Apache Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Redman Industries, Inc. 573 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- Apache Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Redman Industries, Inc. 573 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977