Cited by

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

62 citing documents.

City of Casa Grande v. Tucker 817 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
City of Casa Grande v. Tucker 817 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
t paid in a condemnation action would have exceeded the cost of one acre of land since the easement would not constitute a full taking and since the sewer line would have added some value to the remainder of the property.” That argument ignores the fact that no specific values have been included in the record and that courts do not ordinarily examine the adequacy of consideration, , nor do they assume disproportionality of consideration.
Sun World Corp. v. City of Phoenix 800 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sun World Corp. v. City of Phoenix 800 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Knott v. Vachal 752 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Knott v. Vachal 752 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
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.