Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite K-Line Builders v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 677 P.2d 1317.

45 citing documents.

Goff v. Cano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
& Loan 4 SADEGHI v. MAJALY, et al. Decision of the Court Ass’n, (citation omitted).
State v. Fulcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Fulcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
& Loan Ass’n, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 24 (1981)).
Campbell v. Pfeifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Campbell v. Pfeifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Armiros v. Rohr 416 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Armiros v. Rohr 416 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See K-Line Builders, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, (citing cases).
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
& Loan Ass’n, (“An offer cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless there is sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.”).
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n, (“For an enforceable contract to exist, there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms so that obligations involved can be ascertained.”).
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
& Loan Ass’n, and they must have intended to be bound by the agreement
Perry v. Honorable Emmet Ronan 234 P.3d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Perry v. Honorable Emmet Ronan 234 P.3d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
& Loan Ass’n, , , 1320 (App.1983), rather than an offer, acceptance, and a subsequent confirmation from the offeror.
Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary School District No. 83 213 P.3d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary School District No. 83 213 P.3d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
& Loan Ass’n, , , 1320 (App.1983).
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
& Loan Ass’n, 3 Arizona cases have not addressed how a notice of claim should be interpreted and by whom.
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
& Loan Ass’n, , , 1320 (App.1983).
State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
& Loan Ass’n, , , 1320 (App.1983), and that is what Appellant did here.
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
& Loan Ass’n, , , 1320 (App.1983), citing Savoca, 112 Ariz. at 394 , 542 P.2d at 819 .
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
K-Line Builders, , , 1320 (App. 1983).
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Larson-Hegstrom & , K-Line Builders, Inc. v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n
Phil Bramsen Distributor, Inc. v. Mastroni 726 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Phil Bramsen Distributor, Inc. v. Mastroni 726 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
K-Line Builders, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Clearly a promise for a promise constitutes adequate consideration, K-Line Builders Inc. v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, , , 1320 (App.1983), and consideration need not be of like or identical value.