Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mustang Equipment, Inc. v. Welch, 564 P.2d 895.

26 citing documents.

Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“It has always been the policy of the law to favor and encourage the resolution of controversies through compromise and settlement rather than through litigation.” Mustang Equip.
Don C. Robertson v. Robert E. Alling Ariz. 2015
Robertson v. Alling 351 P.3d 352 Ariz. 2015
Robertson v. Alling 351 P.3d 352 Ariz. 2015
Cf. Mustang Equip., , (“It has always been the policy of the law to favor and encourage the resolution of controversies through compromise and settlement rather than through litigation.”).
Don C. Robertson v. Robert E. Alling Ariz. 2015
Cf. Mustang Equip., (“It has always been the policy of the law to favor and encourage the resolution of controversies through compromise and settlement rather than through litigation.”).
In Re Alcorn 41 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2002
In Re Alcorn 41 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2002
In the Matter of Richard Alcorn and Steven Feola Ariz. 2002
In the Matter of Richard Alcorn and Steven Feola Ariz. 2002
Hmielewski v. Maricopa County 960 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hmielewski v. Maricopa County 960 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 19 However, Mustang Equipment, , is more instructive.
Gordon v. Liguori 895 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gordon v. Liguori 895 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Plaintiffs cite only Mustang Equip., , in support of their argument.
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See Mustang Equipment, , City of Tucson v. Gallagher, supra.
Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital 688 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital 688 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
E.g., Mustang Equipment, , McGrath v. Bill Johnston Golf Properties, Inc.
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Shell Oil Company v. Christie 607 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Shell Oil Company v. Christie 607 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Mustang Equipment, , Sequoia Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Halec Construction Co., Inc.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Paynter 593 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Paynter 593 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
We do not accept State Farm’s argument that a contrary result is required by our Supreme Court’s
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
62 *22 A.L.R.3d 1111, and cases cited therein), the recent decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in Mustang Equipment, , makes it clear that the agreement entered into here is in fact a “Gallagher agreement”, and subject to all the requirements thereof.