Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Norton v. First Federal Savings, 624 P.2d 854.

38 citing documents.

Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Sav., (); Sherman v. First Am.
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Allstate v. Ecodry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Allstate v. Ecodry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sav., (“[I]n order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself.”).
Ansley v. Banner Health 419 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ansley v. Banner Health 419 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
MacH v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
MacH v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sav., (“[F]or a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself .
Bond v. San Tan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bond v. San Tan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Sav., , (contemplated benefit must be intentional and direct); , (contracting parties must intend to recognize third party as beneficiary).
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
we found that an intention to benefit the husband was indicated in the contract, that the contemplated benefit was both intentional and direct, and that it definitely appeared that the parties intended to recognize the husband as the primary party in interest.
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(intention to benefit third party must be indicated in contract itself; contemplated benefit must be both intentional and direct; it must appear that parties intend to recognize third party as primary party in interest); Stratton v. Inspiration Consol.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. Arizona Department of Transportation 838 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. Arizona Department of Transportation 838 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
and ‘it must definitely appear that the parties intend to recognize the third party as the primary party in interest.’ , quoting *390 , (citations omitted).
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
: The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 15 Ariz.App
Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Savings, , held: The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself____ The contemplated benefit must be both intentional and direct, ...
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984