Cited by

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

81 citing documents.

Shanks v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. 845 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
SOUTHWEST SAV. AND LOAN v. SunAmp Systems 838 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
SOUTHWEST SAV. AND LOAN v. SunAmp Systems 838 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Co., -51 , -16 (1991) (citing Smith v. Melson, Inc., , 3 Arthur L. Corbin, Contracts § 535, at 19-20 (1960)).
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1041 Ariz. 1988
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1041 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Melson, Inc., 135 *
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Camelback Office Park 751 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1988
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Camelback Office Park 751 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1988
Assuming, arguendo, however, that the parties intended Amory’s July 1981 letter to modify the usual broker-principal arrangement, , any contractual restriction on ColdwelPs ability to offer other properties ended when Cam *231 elback terminated the exclusive listing agreement the following summer.
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
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris 741 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1987
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris 741 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1987
(trial court’s findings of fact will be adopted on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence).
Johnson v. Cavan 733 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Johnson v. Cavan 733 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
See also, Smith v. Melson, Inc., , and 3 Corbin on Contracts, § 582 (1960).
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
According to Smith v. Melson, Inc., -22 , -67 (1983), “a contract should be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all the circumstances....
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
American National Fire Insurance v. Esquire Labs of Arizona, Inc. 694 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
American National Fire Insurance v. Esquire Labs of Arizona, Inc. 694 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital 688 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1984
Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital 688 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1984
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Wean Water, Inc. v. Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. 686 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
we stated that a “contract should be read in light of the parties’ intentions as reflected by their language and in view of all the circumstances.” We held that “the purpose of an agreement is to be divined from the entire instrument and the surrounding circumstances and not from the
Wean Water, Inc. v. Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. 686 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
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