Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Gray v. Kohlhase, 502 P.2d 169.
- D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Young, 230 Ariz. at 437, ¶ 24 ().
- Young v. Rose 286 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- Young v. Rose 286 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Best v. Edwards
176 P.3d 695
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
[He] must show substantial additional detriment separate and apart from the failure to receive the benefits he would have received under the oral agreement.” In the same vein, , the plaintiff sought to enforce an oral promise to pay a commission for the sale of real estate, and we held that the defendants were not estopped to raise the statute of frauds because the plaintiff had not alleged any loss except the mere loss of the commission.
- Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. 2 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
- Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. 2 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
- Matter of Bowen 774 P.2d 1348 Ariz. 1989
-
Matter of Bowen
774 P.2d 1348
Ariz. 1989
149 , or for abuse of process
- Lancer Realty & Investments, Inc. v. Anderson 703 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
-
Lancer Realty & Investments, Inc. v. Anderson
703 P.2d 1225
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Upon an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real property, or mines, for compensation or a commission.”
- Nowell v. Andrew Wright Enters., Inc. 691 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- Nowell v. Andrew Wright Enters., Inc. 691 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- Matter of Estate of Moore 669 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Matter of Estate of Moore 669 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Broadway Realty & Trust, Inc. v. Gould 665 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
-
Broadway Realty & Trust, Inc. v. Gould
665 P.2d 580
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
for compensation or a commission.” Since the evidence below discloses that there was no local real estate board commission schedule, the question is whether the statute of frauds is satisfied when the parties agree that the commission shall be the “going rate.” , we dealt with a contract in which the amount of commission was left blank.
- Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
-
Nienstedt v. Wetzel
651 P.2d 876
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
122 , , Blue Goose Growers, Inc. v. Yuma Groves, Inc., 641 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1981).
- Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 574 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 574 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- Olson v. Neale 570 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
-
Olson v. Neale
570 P.2d 209
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
342 , a real estate broker is presumed to know that an oral contract of employment for rendition of services in negotiating a sale of real estate for compensation or a commission is invalid, , and that Arizona does not recognize the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel to real estate listing agreements, see Gibson v. W. D. Parker Trust, supra.
- Gibson v. W.D. Parker Trust 527 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
-
Gibson v. W.D. Parker Trust
527 P.2d 301
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
122 , , we correctly stated the general principle that one may be estopped to assert the Statute of Frauds; but, we also indicated that this would be applicable to real estate listing agreements.