Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., 586 P.2d 978.

54 citing documents.

Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall Ariz. 2023
Voice of Surprise v. Skip Hall Ariz. 2023
v. Mohave-Kingman Ests., Inc., (“In general, equitable defenses .
Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
v. Mohave-Kingman 3 TEMPE v. GRAYSTAR, et al. Decision of the Court Est., Inc., (“In general, equitable defenses .
Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
v. Mohave-Kingman Ests., Inc., (“Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.”); (“We find no clear showing of an intent to waive a right as is required by our case law.”).
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
v. Mohave-Kingman Ests., Inc.
State ex rel. Darwin v. Arnett 330 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Darwin v. Arnett 330 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , State ex rel.
Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Associates LLC 316 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Associates LLC 316 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., -23 , -84 (1978) (holding frustration of purpose inapplicable because the risk of a change in the zoning ordinance was reasonably foreseeable and one defendant could have contracted against it); see also City of Miami Beach v. Championship Sports, Inc., 200 So.2d 583, 586-87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967)
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Additionally, the Board must exercise the powers given to it by the legislature “in the manner fixed by statute.” Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , Ariz. Bd.
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
The legislature’s purpose in creating the competitive bidding statute was “to prevent favoritism, fraud and public waste by encouraging free and full competition.” See Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Yes for Az!/col River Indian v. Rep Jim Wiers Ariz. 2002
Yes for Az!/col River Indian v. Rep Jim Wiers Ariz. 2002
See Mohave County v. Mohave- Kingman Estates, Inc.
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Vallejo 979 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Vallejo 979 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The court ruled that under Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , the defense of laches could not apply to the State in matter s affecting governmental or sovereign functions.
Hancock v. McCarroll 937 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hancock v. McCarroll 937 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
County supervisors “may exercise no powers except those specifically granted by statute and in the manner fixed by statute.” Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , ( , 158 P. 837 (1916)).
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Appellants lastly argue that equitable defenses cannot be asserted against the State absent some affirmative misconduct on its part
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Outdoor Systems, , (finding that the state agency’s inadvertent issuance of three nonconforming sign permits and failure to notice the error for two years did not amount to wrongful conduct which would give rise to equitable estoppel); Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , (county’s failure to immediately enforce the terms of a land sale contract upon the purchaser’s breach did not equitably estop it from later suing the purchaser); , (state was not estopped from seeking overpayme
7200 Scottsdale Road General Partners v. Kuhn Farm MacHinery, Inc. 909 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
7200 Scottsdale Road General Partners v. Kuhn Farm MacHinery, Inc. 909 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., -23 , -84 (1978); Mobile Home Estates, Inc. v. Levitt Mobile Home Sys., Inc., , Matheny, 147 Ariz. at 360 , 710 P.2d at 470 ; Garner, 18 Ariz.App.
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
§ 11-202(A); 5 see, e.g., Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , see also Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County, 26 Ariz.App.
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
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
It also contends that President Hughes was not lawfully empowered to disregard § 7-207, and therefore his “hold in abeyance” letter was unauthorized or ultra vires, , Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Anamax Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 711 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Anamax Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 711 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
While Anamax recognizes that the state cannot be estopped from asserting its lawful rights in the exercise of its governmental functions by the unauthorized acts of its officers, , Anamax maintains that the board’s requirement of legal counsel is not a lawful right.
City of Phoenix v. Kennedy 675 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
City of Phoenix v. Kennedy 675 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , Maricopa County v. Cities & Towns of Avondale, Etc., 12 Ariz.App.
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Renaissance Homes 679 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Renaissance Homes 679 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Gilbert v. County of Mohave 650 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Gilbert v. County of Mohave 650 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
It is also well established that a county “must act not only within the limits of the power granted it by the legislature, but must also comply with the statutory requirements prescribed by the legislature.” Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
Brigham v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona 629 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Brigham v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona 629 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
the supreme court rejected the contention that a purchaser was entitled to a 30-day grace period where she had paid nothing toward the purchase price of the land, despite the fact that nothing is literally “less than twenty per cent of the purchase price.” In Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , the supreme court refused to apply the statute where the purchaser had paid 100% of the purchase price.