Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carroll v. Lee, 712 P.2d 923.

62 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bennett Laquan Williams 553 P.3d 161 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Bennett Laquan Williams 553 P.3d 161 Ariz. 2024
(“[A] promise for a promise constitutes adequate consideration .
Bellamy v. Bellamy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Bellamy v. Bellamy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
(“The presumption [of community property] applies to property acquired during marriage even though title is taken in the name of only one spouse.”); 4 In fact, the record is silent as to what happened with $1.2 million of the $6.6 million settlement payment.
Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lanier v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
This presumption applies even if “title is taken in the name of only one spouse.”
Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
But the statutory presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is community property is both “fundamental to Arizona community property law,” and “strong,” ¶ 9 (App. 2016) ().
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[P]arties may by their course of conduct express their agreement, though no words are ever spoken.
Egizzii v. Egizzii Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Egizzii v. Egizzii Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[T]he law will not give non-marital cohabitating parties the benefit of community property.”).
Calabrese v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Calabrese v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008), ).
Turley v. Beus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Turley v. Beus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Alexander v. O’Neil, ( (Wash.
In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Marriage of Foster 376 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶9 The presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is community property is “strong.”
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., citing Treadway v. W. Cotton Oil & Ginning Co., (“[m]utuality of obligation” required for valid contract and exists only when both parties bound).
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman contends, however, that based on evidence of their prior course of dealing and other circumstances, the jury reasonably could infer PRE had 5 intended to enter into a contract with him.2 (implied contract, with same legal effect as express contract, may be inferred as matter of reason and justice from acts and conduct of parties and circumstances surrounding their transaction).
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
In Re Moak 71 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2003
In Re Moak 71 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2003
(holding that “[t]here is a strong legal presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property”).
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
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
See Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381-83 , 710 P.2d at 1036-38 ; Leikvold, 141 Ariz. at 546-48 , 688 P.2d at 172-74 ; , Swingle v. Myerson, 19 Ariz.App.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
See Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381-83 , 710 P.2d at 1036-38 ; Leikvold, 141 Ariz. at 546-48 , 688 P.2d at 172-74 ; , Swingle v. Myerson, 19 Ariz.App.
Keith Equipment Co. v. Casa Grande Cotton Finance Co. 928 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Keith Equipment Co. v. Casa Grande Cotton Finance Co. 928 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
for the proposition that an implied contract may be inferred from the course of conduct of the parties.
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
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
Hartford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 870 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hartford v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 870 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
and courts do not ordinarily inquire into the adequacy of consideration.” -14 , -27 (1986) (citation omitted).
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See, , (nearly conclusive presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property).
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 71.
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
v. Pugliani, , (constructive trust created when one person enriches himself by wrongly holding another’s property); , (implied contract is inferred as matter of reason and justice from acts and conduct of parties and their circumstances).