Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Polk v. Koerner, 533 P.2d 660.

86 citing documents.

Terrell v. Torres 438 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Terrell v. Torres 438 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“It is a fundamental rule in the interpretation of contracts that the court must ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made if at all possible.” (citation omitted)).
Stith v. Ensign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stith v. Ensign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
112 Ariz. at 181; (contra proferentum is a secondary rule of contract construction that applies only when the meaning of a contract remains unclear after application of primary rules of construction).
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , (“When interpreting a contract, nevertheless, it is fundamental that a court attempt to ‘ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made if at all possible.’ ”) ( , ).
Gravel Resources of Arizona v. Hills 170 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gravel Resources of Arizona v. Hills 170 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
it is fundamental that a court attempt to ‘ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made if at all possible.’”) ( ).
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tobias v. Dailey 998 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Siemsen v. Davis 998 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tobias v. Dailey 998 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Ariz. R. Ci v. P. 52(a); -95 , -62 (1975).
Siemsen v. Davis 998 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
P. 52(a); -95 , -62 (1975).
In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
Parol evidence enables a court to “ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made if at all possible.” Taylor, 175 Ariz. at 153 , 854 P.2d at 1139 ( , Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins.
Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
When the “written language of the agreement and the decree itself does not resolve the issue [of merger] as a matter of law, the intent of the parties and of the court considered in light of the agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances must be resolved.” Young, 142 Ariz. at 420 , 690 P.2d at 139 ( , ).
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
See Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 ; , Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., -31 , -14 (1970).
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Aboud v. DeConcini 842 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Aboud v. DeConcini 842 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Crown Life Insurance v. Howard 822 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Crown Life Insurance v. Howard 822 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Blanton v. Hahn 763 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Blanton v. Hahn 763 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Harte v. Stuttgart Autohaus, Inc. 706 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Harte v. Stuttgart Autohaus, Inc. 706 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Associated Students, supra.
Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Young v. Burkholder 690 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984