Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Continental Casualty Company v. Grabe Brick Co., 401 P.2d 168.

32 citing documents.

Dmarc 2006-Cd2 v. Bush Realty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dmarc 2006-Cd2 v. Bush Realty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
See, Continental Casualty [Co.] v. Grabe Brick Co [.]
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
We agree that the defense is not favored, , and that, “where two constructions are possible, the one which gives the longer period of limitations is the one which is to be preferred.” O’ , -55 (1938).
Ray Electric, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co. 758 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Ray Electric, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co. 758 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
583, 585-86 , -73 (1967)
Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc. 687 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc. 687 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Occidental Chemical Co. v. Connor 604 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Occidental Chemical Co. v. Connor 604 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
where the court stated: “This court has found the general rule to be that where the parties are doing business on an ‘open account’ basis the statute of limitations does not run during such a state of mutual dealings, but only from the date of the last item.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 584 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. ARIZ. ST. CARPENTERS 584 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. ARIZ. ST. CARPENTERS 584 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 584 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
E. L. Farmer Construction Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 560 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
E. L. Farmer Construction Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 560 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State of Michigan v. First National Bank of Arizona 495 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State of Michigan v. First National Bank of Arizona 495 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
This contention is based upon three theories: (1) that the services rendered to the mentally incompetent child are still continuing and the statute does not begin to run until the termination of the rendering of such services, , (2) that the cause of action is based upon fraud or mistake and that the statute of limitations is tolled until the discovery of the fraud or mistake, citing A.R.S.
State Board of Directors for Junior Colleges v. Nelson 460 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1969
State Board of Directors for Junior Colleges v. Nelson 460 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1969
San Manuel Copper Corporation v. Redmond 445 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
San Manuel Copper Corporation v. Redmond 445 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Lyon v. Great American Insurance Company 422 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Lyon v. Great American Insurance Company 422 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
The question of the application of the statute of limitations to the claim of materialmen is the subject matter of two cases, , and Security-Connecticut Companies v. Grand-Air Metal Products, 3 Ariz.App.
Lawless v. Ennis 415 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Lawless v. Ennis 415 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Goetz v. Phillips, 2 Ariz.App.
Security-Connecticut Companies v. Grand-Air Metal Products 411 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Security-Connecticut Companies v. Grand-Air Metal Products 411 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
D as follows: “This court has found the general rule to be that where the parties are doing business on an ‘open account’ basis the statute of limitations does not run during such a state of mutual dealings, but only from the date of the last item.”