DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., 463 P.2d 547.

26 citing documents.

  • Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Followed Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Milberger v. Chaney Building Co. 704 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Milberger v. Chaney Building Co. 704 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    187 , Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., , Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
  • Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    See Savoca Masonry Company, Inc. v. Homes & Son Construction Company, Inc., , , , Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co.
  • Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 661 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Pyeatte v. Pyeatte 661 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Currie v. Dooley 647 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Currie v. Dooley 647 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    See Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Construction Co.
  • E-Z Livin' Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Tommaney 550 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • E-Z Livin' Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Tommaney 550 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    In the case of Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., , the Court was asked to decide the question of whether parol evidence should have been admitted to alter or amend a purchase order.
  • Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Polk v. Koerner 533 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1975
  • Polk v. Koerner 533 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1975
    Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co.
  • Mead v. Nacey 531 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Mead v. Nacey 531 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., , Thornton v. Southwest Flour and Feed Co., 8 Ariz.App.
  • Blaine v. McSpadden 526 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1974
  • Blaine v. McSpadden 526 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1974
    B. S. & K. Mining Company v. American Smelting and Refining Company, 10 Ariz.App.
  • Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 467 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 467 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Our holding in Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., , is in point, namely: ■“Our decision is further buttressed by the well-recognized exception to the pa-rol evidence rule that if the terms and provisions of a contract are ambiguous, or if the writing is capable of more than one construction, parol evidence is admissible to explain and ascertain wh
  • Davies v. Courtney 463 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Davies v. Courtney 463 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    Our holding in Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., , is in point, namely: “Our decision is further buttressed by the well-recognized exception to the parol evidence rule that if the terms and provisions of a contract are ambiguous, or if the writing is capable of more than one construction, parol evidence is admissible to explain