Cited by

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

86 citing documents.

United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
1 Restatement of Contracts § 236(d) at 328 (1932).
Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, Inc. 666 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, Inc. 666 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Jones v. Chiado Corp. 670 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jones v. Chiado Corp. 670 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Viewing the facts, as we must, in a light most favorable to sustaining the judgment, , , the record reflects the following.
Phillips v. Flowing Wells Unified School District No. 8 669 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Phillips v. Flowing Wells Unified School District No. 8 669 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
*194 The interpretation of a contract is a
Preston Motor Co., Inc. v. Palomares 650 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Preston Motor Co., Inc. v. Palomares 650 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Christy v. Hoke 618 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Christy v. Hoke 618 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Gutmacher v. H & J Construction Company, , McDaniel & Associates v. Merodias Construction Company, Inc.
Insurance Agencies Co. v. Weaver 604 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1979
Insurance Agencies Co. v. Weaver 604 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1979
However, this rule “is a secondary rule of construction to be applied only if the meaning remains uncertain after the application of * * * primary standards * *
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Gann v. Morris 596 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gann v. Morris 596 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
McDaniel & Associates v. Merodias Construction Co. 585 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
McDaniel & Associates v. Merodias Construction Co. 585 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Hofmann Company v. Meisner, 17 Ariz.App.
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Dutch Inns of America, Inc. v. Horizon Corporation, 18 Ariz.App.
Wolk v. Nichols 572 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977
Wolk v. Nichols 572 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, , Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris, 10 Ariz.App.
Amphitheater Public Schools v. Eastman 574 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Amphitheater Public Schools v. Eastman 574 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Kincheloe v. Pima County 559 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1977
Kincheloe v. Pima County 559 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1977
Although the interpretation of an instrument is a question of law to be determined by this court independently, , for the purpose of this appeal we assume the Bill of Sale to be ambiguous and discuss only the claim of economic duress or business compulsion.
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
McQuade v. Tucson Tiller Apartments, Ltd. 543 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
McQuade v. Tucson Tiller Apartments, Ltd. 543 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Vogel v. Hohenstein 540 P.2d 130 Ariz. 1975
Vogel v. Hohenstein 540 P.2d 130 Ariz. 1975