Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Abrams v. Horizon Corp., 669 P.2d 51.

34 citing documents.

Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
at 141 (“[A]n earlier established substantive right, once vested by the filing of a lawsuit, may not be impaired.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ()).
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”) (citations omitted); (similar).
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (noting the existence of a “preference to construe ambiguities against the drafter”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 206, and cmt.
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
§ 12-341.01(A), which allows the 12 court to award fees “[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract.”
Brunet v. Murphy 135 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Brunet v. Murphy 135 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 15 After surveying several Arizona cases discussing this point, the Hall court concluded, “[t]he clear import of Abrams [v. Horizon Corp., , ], like Bouldin [v. Turek, , ], is that ‘an earlier established substantive right’, [sic] once vested by the filing of a lawsuit, may not be impaired---- As with Crawford [v. Superior Court in and for Pima Cty., , ] the date we i
State Ex Rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd. 916 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd. 916 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
§ 1-211(0; , vacated on other grounds, , (A court should construe statutes which, impose civil penalties according to the fair import of their terms.)
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc. 874 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Property Management, Inc. 874 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Patton, 154 Ariz. at 172 , 741 P.2d at 305 ; , 646 P.2d.
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc. 800 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc. 800 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Wilson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 780 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Wilson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 780 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Sallomi v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 771 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Sallomi v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 771 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. 733 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. 733 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sullivan v. Metro Productions, Inc. 724 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Sullivan v. Metro Productions, Inc. 724 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Similarly, , we considered the retroactive effect of 1980 amendments to A.R.S.
Marcal Ltd. Partnership v. Title Insurance 722 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Marcal Ltd. Partnership v. Title Insurance 722 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Triangle Construction v. City of Phoenix 720 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Triangle Construction v. City of Phoenix 720 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985