Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite WJ Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 541 P.2d 385.

53 citing documents.

Kimminau Law Firm, P.C. v. Melody Hoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Co., (recoupment defense appropriate where insurance company sued for payment and defendant alleged policy claim had been improperly denied); Ness, 117 Ariz. at 359-60 (recoupment defense available where defendant asserted negligence arising out of transaction); Morris v. Achen Constr.
Langbehn v. Langbehn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Langbehn v. Langbehn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., (noting that a time limit established by statute for a specific type of agreement should govern over the more general time limit for a written contract).; La Canada Hills Ltd. P’ ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (holding that because a statute of limitations existed specifically for actions
Shea v. Az Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shea v. Az Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co., (“If the moving party on a motion has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the opponent of the motion has the burden to produce sufficient evidence that there is indeed an issue.”).
La Canada Hills Limited Partnership v. Florence Kite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
La Canada Hills Limited Partnership v. Florence Kite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Co., (more specific statute of limitations governs over more general).
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 970 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 970 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Co., , the Arizona Supreme Court discussed the distinction between a counterclaim or set-off *171 on the one hand and recoupment on the other.
Scottsdale Insurance v. Monares 734 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Scottsdale Insurance v. Monares 734 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Kroeger Co. v. Traveler’s Indemnity Company
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stuart v. Insurance Co. of North America 730 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stuart v. Insurance Co. of North America 730 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., , : If the moving party on a motion has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the opponent of the motion has the burden to produce sufficient evidence that there is indeed an issue.
Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc. 747 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc. 747 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Schroeder v. Hudgins 690 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Schroeder v. Hudgins 690 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Duhammel v. Star 653 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Duhammel v. Star 653 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
our Supreme Court stated: If a claim would be barred originally by a statute of limitation, it is barred as a counterclaim even if it arises from the same transaction except as it falls within the principles of recoupment.
Register v. Coleman 633 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1981
Register v. Coleman 633 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1981
Aetna Finance Co. v. Pasquali 626 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Aetna Finance Co. v. Pasquali 626 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
1421 (1935); , Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc.
Occidental Chemical Co. v. Connor 604 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Occidental Chemical Co. v. Connor 604 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Cruzan v. Franklin Stores Corp., 72 N.M.
Granmo v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 596 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Granmo v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 596 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Sewell v. Brookbank 581 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Sewell v. Brookbank 581 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 582 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 582 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc. 572 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977