Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cook v. Cook, 691 P.2d 664.

30 citing documents.

Staples v. Conley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Staples v. Conley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
It is generally accepted that “mutual promises are adequate consideration to support an enforceable contract.” (); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 75 cmt.
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(relying on the Restatement (Second) of Contracts for principles of contract formation).
Escobedo v. Banderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Escobedo v. Banderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lehman v. Fussell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lehman v. Fussell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
However, “a promise may be inferred wholly or partly from conduct and there is no distinction in the effect of the promise whether it is expressed in writing, or orally, or in acts, or partly in one of these ways and partly in others.” Id., (citation omitted).
In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 18 , the Arizona Supreme Court recognized the validity of an agreement, express or implied, between unmarried persons to pool resources and share equally in certain assets.
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In support of her argument
Smith v. Mangum 747 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Smith v. Mangum 747 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Lincoln v. Lincoln 746 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lincoln v. Lincoln 746 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
in support of her contention.
Dalton v. Superior Court 738 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Dalton v. Superior Court 738 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Custom Roofing Co., Inc. v. Alling 706 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Custom Roofing Co., Inc. v. Alling 706 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Coast to Coast Manufacturing v. Carnes Construction, Inc. 700 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Coast to Coast Manufacturing v. Carnes Construction, Inc. 700 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Although most contracts are formed by an express written exchange of mutual promises, such “promises need not be express in order to create an enforceable contract.”