Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, 710 P.2d 1025.

385 citing documents.

Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1992
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Appellant argues that the Statute of Frauds does not apply because: (1) the employment contract could have been fully performed within one year; (2) , , and, (3) the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel should be invoked to preclude the application of the Statute of Frauds.
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)
Canon School Dist. 50 v. Wes Const. 848 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Canon School Dist. 50 v. Wes Const. 848 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the plaintiff appealed and secured a reversal of the trial court's entry of summary judgment against her.
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
380-81 , 1035-36 (1985) (citing Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind.
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Summary judgment is properly granted by the trial court “if the facts produced in support of the claim have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim.”
Hampton v. Glendale Union High School District 837 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hampton v. Glendale Union High School District 837 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
McCallister Co. v. Kastella 825 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
McCallister Co. v. Kastella 825 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
“The covenant requires that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of their agreement.”
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 478 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
2 On review, therefore, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, , and will uphold the ruling of the trial court only if there is no genuine issue of material fact, the undisputed material facts support but one inference, and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the substantive law.
Greves v. Ohio State Life Insurance 821 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Greves v. Ohio State Life Insurance 821 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 812 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 812 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See, e.g., Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass’n, , , and cases cited therein, 147 Ariz. at 386 , 710 P.2d at 1041 .
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Construction of California, Inc. 804 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Construction of California, Inc. 804 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hosp., , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979).
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
& Loan Assn., , -88 , -43 (1985).
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Citibank (Ariz.) v. Miller & Schroeder Fin., Inc. 812 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Citibank (Ariz.) v. Miller & Schroeder Fin., Inc. 812 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
Hosp., -94 , -49 (1985).
Bruce v. Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc. 801 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Barlow v. Blackburn 798 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Barlow v. Blackburn 798 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(state’s constitution and statutes articulate public policy and “embody the public conscience of the people of this state”).
Dorrance v. Valley National Bank 797 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Dorrance v. Valley National Bank 797 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In support of his argument
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990
Chambers, 130 Ariz. at 607 , 638 P.2d at 221 .
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
rstood and agreed at that time that at such time as the case was won, there would be filed with the court an application for attorneys’ fees on an hourly basis, same to be awarded in the court’s discretion at a reasonable rate, all in accordance with Sparks v. Republican [sic] National Life Insurance Co., , [sic] (1982)
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989