Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Riley v. Stoves, 526 P.2d 747.

32 citing documents.

Preston v. Las Sendas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Preston v. Las Sendas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
v. Figueroa, ¶ 9 (App. 2009); (“Restrictions which are not absolutely clear are to be interpreted in the ordinary and popular sense, related to circumstances under which they were used, having in mind their purpose and general situation.”).
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 21 , (-30 , -54 (1974)) (noting that frequent violations may result in a waiver of ability to enforce a specific covenant).
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Biltmore Estates, 177 Ariz. at 449, 868 P.2d at 1032 (“[T]he cardinal principle in construing restrictive covenants is that the intention of the parties to the instrument is paramount.”) (-26, -50 (1974)); Sky Mountain Ranch Subdiv.
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Restrictions that are not absolutely clear should “be interpreted in the ordinary and popular sense, related to circumstances under which they were used, having in mind their purpose and general situation.”
Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass'n v. Tezak 868 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass'n v. Tezak 868 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
223, 225-26, -50 (1974) (citing 20 Am.Jur.2d, Covenants, § 5, p. 579).
Westwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Tenhoff 745 P.2d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Westwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Tenhoff 745 P.2d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 714 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1986
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 714 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1986
When, however, the classification drawn by the legislature is inherently suspect or where the legislation infringes on a fundamental right, , 228 n. 2, , 752 n. 2 (1974), a classification will be upheld only if it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest.
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Decker v. Hendricks, 7 Ariz.App.
Goodman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 670 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Goodman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 670 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, Inc. 666 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, Inc. 666 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Jalifi v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 644 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Jalifi v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 644 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Adams v. Lindberg 610 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Adams v. Lindberg 610 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1979
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1979
Tucson-North Town Home Apartments Homeowners' Ass'n v. Robb 596 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Tucson-North Town Home Apartments Homeowners' Ass'n v. Robb 596 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Carter v. Conroy 544 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Carter v. Conroy 544 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976