Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chanay v. Chittenden, 563 P.2d 287.

72 citing documents.

Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
AFSCME, 249 Ariz. at 112 ¶ 28 ().
Chubbuck v. Wheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Chubbuck v. Wheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Summary judgment is not designed to resolve factual issues, but to ascertain whether such issues exist.”).
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
& Loan Ass’n of Phx., ().
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
see also Bowman v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 438 F. App'x 613, 615 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Arizona law prohibits an action based on the promissory estoppel theory 3 The court noted that the affidavit on which Patisserie relied conflicted with the affiant's prior deposition testimony and that the asserted pro
American Federation v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
American Federation v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
(stating that an implied contract cannot exist when an express contract addresses the same subject matter and concluding that even if appellant could prove an implied agreement under some equitable theory, “he could only have done so if there were no express agreement to the contrary”); City of Countryside
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
It is the attorney's responsibility to search the record ....”); , (holding "Itlhe entire record must be examined” by the trial court before granting summary judgment); ¶ 15 , (“The trial court must consider the entire record before deciding a summary judgment motion.”).
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Id.; , (citing Ariz. R. Civ.
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 16 , a case standing for the proposition that “[t]here can be no implied contract where there is an express contract between the parties in reference to the same subject matter.” , , 1153 n. 3 (App.1987), of the inapp
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-39 , -94 (1977); Wright v. Palmer, 11 Ariz.App.
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
We criticize horizontal appeals because they waste judicial resources by asking two judges to consider identical motions and because they encourage “judge shopping.” Id.; , Mozes v. Daru, 4 Ariz.App.
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Intel’s , also is misplaced.
Dalton v. Superior Court 738 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Dalton v. Superior Court 738 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contrary to respondents’ contentions, this is not a case of successive motions for summary judgment with no new evidence
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
We have since allowed a cause of action for interference with a lease agreement, , for inducing breach of a restrictive covenant, McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. D’Ascoli, , for interference with an agency contract, , and for interference with business relationships
Autonumerics, Inc. v. Bayer Industries, Inc. 696 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Autonumerics, Inc. v. Bayer Industries, Inc. 696 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bayer argues that it was improper for Judge Patterson to grant the second motion for summary judgment, , in which our supreme court disapproved the practice of a trial judge redeciding a motion for summary judgment where no new discovery had taken place.
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila County 687 P.2d 1257 Ariz. 1984
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila County 687 P.2d 1257 Ariz. 1984
Gila Valley Irrigation District v. Superior Court 697 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Gila Valley Irrigation District v. Superior Court 697 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Union Construction Co., , see also State ex rel.
Union Rock & Mat. v. Scottsdale Con. Center 678 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Union Rock & Mat. v. Scottsdale Con. Center 678 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The minute entry further expressed concern that to grant the motion for reconsideration would require the vacation of the prior ruling, contra to the condemnation of "lateral appeals"
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
ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, ETC. v. Olson 643 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, ETC. v. Olson 643 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982