Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Woliansky v. Miller, 661 P.2d 1145.

26 citing documents.

Azuly v. C-Back Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Azuly v. C-Back Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Dragoons v. 1881 Preserve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Dragoons v. 1881 Preserve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶9 “Specific performance is ordinarily available to enforce contracts for the sale of real property because land is viewed as unique.”
Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(in a specific performance case, “land is viewed as unique and an award of damages is usually considered an inadequate remedy”); cf. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 34, cmt.
Stephens v. Jago Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stephens v. Jago Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“Specific performance is ordinarily available to enforce contracts for the sale of real property because land is viewed as unique and an award of damages is usually considered an inadequate remedy.”).
Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Specific performance is ordinarily available to enforce contracts for the sale of real property because land is viewed as unique and an award of damages is usually considered an inadequate remedy.” (citation omitted).
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Thomas v. MONTELUCIA VILLAS, LLC 275 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thomas v. MONTELUCIA VILLAS, LLC 275 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
QUEIROZ v. Harvey 204 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
QUEIROZ v. Harvey 204 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 24 “Specific performance is ordinarily available to enforce contracts for the sale of real property because land is viewed as unique and an award of damages is usually considered an inadequate remedy.”
Woliansky v. Miller 739 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Woliansky v. Miller 739 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
we held that Woliansky, the assignee of the original vendee of a lot and townhouse, was entitled to specific performance of the realty contract or to damages in the event the vendor could not convey the property.
Canton v. Monaco Partnership 753 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Canton v. Monaco Partnership 753 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Woliansky v. Miller 704 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Woliansky v. Miller 704 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
and the trial court proceedings conducted pursuant thereto.
Blackmore v. Honnas 687 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Blackmore v. Honnas 687 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983