Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., 542 P.2d 817.

80 citing documents.

Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes and Son Construction Company, Inc.
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205; Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Construction Co.
Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc. 693 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Savoca Masonry Company, Inc. v. Homes and Son Construction Company, Inc.
Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc. 693 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Savoca Masonry Company, Inc. v. Homes and Son Construction Company, Inc.
Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Savoca Masonry Company, Inc. v. Homes & Son Construction Company, Inc., , , , Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., 11 Ariz.App.
K-Line Builders v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n 677 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
K-Line Builders v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n 677 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes and Son Construction Company, Inc.
Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. v. PBL Consultants 666 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. v. PBL Consultants 666 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., Inc., , Restatement of Contracts 2d, § 205.
Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc. 330 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1983
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 661 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 661 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the court found that a contractual relationship based upon an oral agreement did not exist between a general contractor and a subcontractor because “[o]nly the price and work involved were agreed upon; other provisions which might in the end have proven critical were not.” 112 Ariz. at 395 , 542
Currie v. Dooley 647 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Currie v. Dooley 647 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Construction Co., , Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas and Electric Co., 11 Ariz.App.
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
Co., , that the requirements of an enforceable contract are an offer, an acceptance, consideration and sufficient specification of terms so that the parties’ obligations can be determined.
Hiser v. Randolph 617 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Hiser v. Randolph 617 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Savoca Masonry Company, Inc. v. Holmes and Son Construction Company, Inc.
Aspell v. AM. CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE, ETC. 595 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Aspell v. AM. CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE, ETC. 595 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co. Inc., , Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n, *402 37 Cal.2d 134 , 6 Am.Jur.2d Associations and Clubs Sec.
Boyle v. City of Phoenix 563 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1977
Boyle v. City of Phoenix 563 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1977
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Co., , and must reverse the order granting the motion if, upon a review of the entire record, there are any material disputed questions of fact which if resolved against the moving party could adversely affect the final judgment.