Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State, 562 P.2d 360.

60 citing documents.

State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Standage Ventures, (“[T]he law will not allow a party ‘to have his cake and eat it too.’‘‘).
Wheeler v. Deutsche Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wheeler v. Deutsche Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(citing Standage Ventures, -84 (1977)).
Bess v. Speno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bess v. Speno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Taylor, 175 Ariz. at 152-53; Standage Ventures, (holding that the parol evidence rule “prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written agreement” (citing Richards Dev.
Wolford v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wolford v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citing Standage Ventures, -84 (1977)).
Verde v. Stoneking Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Verde v. Stoneking Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Regarding judicial estoppel, our supreme court has explained “that a party who has assumed a particular position in one judicial proceeding will not be allowed to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.” Standage Ventures
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
y, (judicial estoppel only applies to prevent a party from taking an inconsistent position in a successive or separate action where: “(1) the parties [are] the same, (2) the question involved [is] the same, and (3) the party asserting the inconsistent position [was] successful in the prior judicial proceeding.” (citing Standage Ventures, P.2d 360 (1977))).
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
ARRIAGE OF THORN Opinion of the Court elements are required before the doctrine may be applied: “(1) the parties must be the same, (2) the question involved must be the same, and (3) the party asserting the inconsistent position must have been successful in the prior judicial proceeding.” Towery, 186 Ariz. at 182, 920 P.2d at 304; see also Standage Ventures, -84, -64 (1977) (essential element of judicial estoppel “is that the position first asserted must have been successfully maintained”).
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
an ambiguity exists on the face of [a] document or the language admits of differing interpretations, parol evidence is admissible to clarify and explain the document.” Standage Ventures, see also Leo Eisenberg &
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Standage Ventures, , Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd.
Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd. 62 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd. 62 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standage Ventures, , Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture, -07 , -90 (App.1981).
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(citing Standage Ventures, , ).
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Standage Ventures, -84 , -64 (1977).
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
See also Standage Ventures, , (abandoning "mutuality” requirement in application of defensive collateral estoppel); , (recognizing use of offensive collateral estoppel, findings of fact made in attorney's disbarment proceedings are b
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Department 727 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Department 727 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Standage Ventures, , Food for Health Co., Inc. v. 3839 Joint Venture, , Spettigue v. Mahoney, 8 Ariz.App.
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1986
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1986
Standage Ventures, , Spettigue v. Mahoney, 8 Ariz.App.
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
King v. Superior Court 673 P.2d 787 Ariz. 1983
King v. Superior Court 673 P.2d 787 Ariz. 1983
Abrams v. Horizon Corp. 669 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1983
Abrams v. Horizon Corp. 669 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1983
Standard Ventures, , Joy Enterprises
State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
court may dispense with requirement of mutuality and permit offensive use of collateral estoppel where lack of mutuality is not unfair and where the circumstances of the particular case indicate that the issue to be precluded was decided under conditions where opposing party in prior action had adequate incentive and opportunity to fully litigate issue); but see Standage Ventures, , (non-mutual collateral estoppel limited to situations involving defensive use of doctrine).
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
1 Spettigue v. Mahoney has since been expressly approved by the Arizona Supreme Court in Standage Ventures
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Investment Corp. 631 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Investment Corp. 631 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Appellees argue that evidence of the alleged oral representation made prior to execution of the option agreement would be barred by the parol evidence rule, citing Standage Ventures, , Sun Lodge, , 7-G Ranching Co. v. Stites, 4 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by