Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., 566 P.2d 1332.

46 citing documents.

Kaatz v. Rainguard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kaatz v. Rainguard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
And as the superior court noted, valid contracts “must have mutuality of obligation” -- “an agreement which permits one party to withdraw at his pleasure is void” and “unenforceable for lack of mutuality.” Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (citation omitted).
Trailhead v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Trailhead v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Paulden Indus., 249 Ariz. at 444, ¶ 9 (noting that an “unambiguous” deed is construed “from the four corners of the document”); see also Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (“Where the intent of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language, there is no need or room for construction or interpretation and a court may not resort thereto.”) (citation omitted).
Lavelle Bridges v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ariz. 2022
Lavelle Bridges v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ariz. 2022
Parties are generally “free to contract as they please,” Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (quoting Naify v. Pacific Indem.
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (“The intent of the parties, as ascertained by the language used, must control the interpretation of the contract.
In Re Christopher L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Christopher L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (“[A] court must give effect to the contract as it is written, and the terms or provisions of the contract, where clear and unambiguous, are conclusive.”).
Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This accords as well with the principles that a contract should not be interpreted to “reserve[] the right to cancel the agreement at will,” Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., or in a way that would “make the contract illusory.” Cent.
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (“[A]n illusory contract is unenforceable for lack of mutuality.
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., (stating that “a court must give effect to the contract as it is written”; “[t]he intent of the parties, as ascertained by the language used, must control the interpretation”); Figueroa, 222 Ariz. at 593, ¶ 9.
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Applying principles of contract law, we “ ‘must give effect to the contract as it is written, and the terms or provisions of the contract, where clear and unambiguous, are conclusive.’ ” , quoting Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Byke, 140 Ariz. at 59 , 680 P.2d at 195 (citing Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., , ).
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
ly applied fee-spreading principles, even though the “primary element” of “spreading of attorneys fees among the benefited class is glaringly absent.” Burke, 206 Ariz. at 274-75, ¶¶ 15-17 , 77 P.3d at 449-50 (a superior court could not, absent a contractual agreement, find that the parties intended the common fund doctrine to apply in a fee shifting situation); Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., , (“Where parties bind themselves by a lawful contract, in the absence of fraud, a court must give e
State v. Taylor 764 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Taylor 764 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
“[A] court must give effect to the contract as it is written, and the terms or provisions of the contract, where clear and unambiguous, are conclusive.” Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., , ( , ).
ARIZONA PROPERTY CAS. INS. GUAR. FUND v. Helme 735 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
ARIZONA PROPERTY CAS. INS. GUAR. FUND v. Helme 735 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Horizon Corp. v. Westcor, Inc. 688 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Horizon Corp. v. Westcor, Inc. 688 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
In Shattuck v. Precision Toyota, Inc., , the court stated that an illusory contract is unenforceable for lack of mutuality.
Byke Const. Co., Inc. v. Miller 680 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Byke Const. Co., Inc. v. Miller 680 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
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
See Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Smith v. Melson, Inc. 659 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1983
Smith v. Melson, Inc. 659 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1983
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Williams Energy Co. 662 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Williams Energy Co. 662 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
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
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., , Employer’s , Malcoff v. Coyier, 14 Ariz.App.
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co., supra; Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Century Medical Plaza v. Goldstein 596 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Century Medical Plaza v. Goldstein 596 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.
Scafidi v. Puckett 578 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Scafidi v. Puckett 578 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.