Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Melson, Inc., 659 P.2d 1264.

81 citing documents.

ASSOCIATED v. CITY OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
ASSOCIATED v. CITY OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
¶17 As we discussed in Smith v. Melson, Inc., “[u]nlike the indefinite article ‘a,’ ‘the’ is a definite article used in reference to a particular thing.”
JOSEPH E. TERBORG v. TOWN OF PAYSON Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
JOSEPH E. TERBORG v. TOWN OF PAYSON Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Smith v. Melson, Inc., (“Unlike the indefinite article ‘a,’ ‘the’ is a definite article used in reference to a particular thing[.]”); Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 408 (2019) (“[G]rammar and usage establish that ‘the’ is a function word .
Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“The construction of a contract is a question of law when the terms are plain and unambiguous.” Smith v. Melson, Inc., (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
See Smith v. Melson, Inc., (“Unlike the indefinite article ‘a,’ ‘the’ is a definite article used in reference to a particular thing.”).
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
.” Smith v. Melson, Inc.
Mago v. Az Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mago v. Az Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 154 (citations omitted); see also Smith v. Melson, Inc., (“A contract should be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all the circumstances.”).
Desert Mountain v. Graham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Desert Mountain v. Graham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Smith v. Melson, Inc., (holding that “the purpose of an agreement is to be divined from the entire instrument and the surrounding circumstances”).
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶13 “When interpreting an agreement, the court may always consider the surrounding circumstances and ‘the context in which it was made.’” ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (quoting Smith v. Melson, Inc., ).
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
Smith v. Melson, Inc., , (“A contract should be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all the circumstances.”); State ex rel.
Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bentley v. Bentley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith v. Melson, Inc., Grosvenor Holdings, L.C.
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 (quoting Smith v. Melson, Inc., , (“A contract should be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all the circumstances.”)).
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
See Smith v. Melson, Inc., (“The construction of a contract is a question of law where the terms of the agreement are plain and unambiguous.”); ¶ 9, (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.”).
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“When interpreting an agreement, the court may always consider the surrounding circumstances” and “the context in which it was made.” Smith v. Melson, Inc., see also Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins.
Potter v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Potter v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Smith v. Melson, Inc., P.2d 1264 (1983).
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 75 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 75 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
A contract is not ambiguous if the parties’ intent is clear from the contract’s language and “in view of all the circumstances.”
Harris v. Harris 991 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harris v. Harris 991 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Arizona view Writing for a unanimous court in Smith v. Melson, Inc., -22 , -67 (1983), Chief Justice Holohan expressly committed Arizona to the Corbin view of contract interpretation.
Chandler Medical Building Partners v. Chandler Dental Group 855 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Chandler Medical Building Partners v. Chandler Dental Group 855 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co. of Cal., , Smith v. Melson, Inc., , American Nat.
Shanks v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. 845 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992