Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ashton Company, 422 P.2d 727.

25 citing documents.

Thompson v. Manten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Thompson v. Manten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A party seeking reformation must “show that a definite intention on which the minds of the parties had met pre-existed the written instrument and that the mistake occurred in its execution.”
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A party seeking reformation of a written agreement must “show that a definite [i]ntention on which the minds of the parties had met pre-existed the written instrument and that the mistake occurred in its execution.”
Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶16 “A party seeking reformation of a written agreement must show that a definite [i]ntention on which the minds of the parties had met pre-existed the written instrument and that [a] mistake occurred in its execution.” SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (citation omitted); (“Mistake, as the word is used in connection with reformation, is a state of mind not in accord with the facts.”).
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 18 A party seeking reformation of a written agreement must “show that a definite [ijntention on which the minds of the parties had met pre-existed the written instrument and that the mistake occurred in its execution.”
Dalton v. McLaughlin 635 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Dalton v. McLaughlin 635 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Northern Contracting Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 573 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1977
Northern Contracting Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 573 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1977
appeal after remand, 9 Ariz.App.
Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wick v. Wick 481 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
appeal after remand, Ashton Co., Inc., Contractors & Engineers v. State, 9 Ariz.App.
Howell v. Remme 480 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Howell v. Remme 480 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. 457 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. 457 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
ASHTON COMPANY, INC., CONTR. & ENG'RS v. State 454 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
ASHTON COMPANY, INC., CONTR. & ENG'RS v. State 454 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
As stated in our previous decision in this case, , : “To entitle one to reformation, it is essential to show that a definite intention on which the minds of the parties had met pre-existed the written instrument and that the mistake occurred in its execution.
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
331 , , , and com *551 pare Reidy v. Almich, 4 Ariz.App.
Executive Towers v. Leonard 439 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Executive Towers v. Leonard 439 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Cordoba v. Wiswall 436 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968