Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank, 408 P.2d 841.

42 citing documents.

The Weitz Company v. Nicholas Heth Ariz. 2014
Weitz Co. v. Heth 333 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2014
The Weitz Company v. Nicholas Heth Ariz. 2014
Co., –05, –79 (App. 1988); Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., –26, –46 (1965).
Weitz Co. v. Heth 333 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2014
Co., -05 , -79 (App.1988); Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -26 , -46 (1965).
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Distinguished Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, , Lamb Excavation, , Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt 274 P.3d 1204 Ariz. 2012
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt 274 P.3d 1204 Ariz. 2012
In 1965, the court of appeals stated that subrogation would occur if (1) a third person discharges an encumbrance on the property of another; (2) the person is not a volunteer; and (3) there is an express or implied agreement “that he will be substituted in place of the holder of the encumbrance.” Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Sourcecorp Inc v. D norcutt/S Norcutt Ariz. 2012
Sourcecorp Inc v. D norcutt/S Norcutt Ariz. 2012
peals stated that subrogation would occur if (1) a third person discharges an encumbrance on the property of another; (2) the person is not a volunteer; and (3) there is an express or implied agreement “that he will be substituted in place of the holder of the encumbrance.” Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 2 Ariz. App. 321, 325
Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Semper Investments, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Semper Investments, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., Phx., 326, 846 (1965) (lender subrogated only to extent loan satisfied priority loan, even though more borrowed); In re Mortgs.
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt 258 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt 258 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Petermanr-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Fagerlie v. MARKHAM CONTRACTING CO., INC. 258 P.3d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fagerlie v. MARKHAM CONTRACTING CO., INC. 258 P.3d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -24 , -44 (1966).
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
290, 293 , Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank, , 844 *571 (1965).
Lamb Excavation v. Torrejon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Lamb Excavation v. Torrejon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Mosher; Peter man-D onnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., see also Mort v. United States, 86 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1996).
MLM Const. Co., Inc. v. Pace Corp. 836 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
MLM Const. Co., Inc. v. Pace Corp. 836 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Finally, MLM cites, inter alia, Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & , for the proposition that a departure from the prescribed process for perfecting a lien will not invalidate it if the departure did not prejudice the party affected.
Herberman v. Bergstrom 816 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Herberman v. Bergstrom 816 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Cont’rs Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Arizona, , 83 C.J.S.
Northwest Federal Savings & Loan v. Tiffany Construction Co. 761 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Northwest Federal Savings & Loan v. Tiffany Construction Co. 761 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
However, Northwest Federal argues that its rights under its May *105 11, 1984 deeds of trust were subrogated to its rights under a deed of trust recorded February 14, 1984, based on Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & P.2d 841 (1965).
Cashway Concrete & Materials v. Sanner Contracting Co. 761 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Cashway Concrete & Materials v. Sanner Contracting Co. 761 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
See Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & P.2d 841 (1965) .
Columbia Group, Inc. v. Jackson 725 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1986
Columbia Group, Inc. v. Jackson 725 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1986
Peterman-Donnelly Engineers &amp
Old Adobe Office Properties, Ltd. v. Gin 727 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Old Adobe Office Properties, Ltd. v. Gin 727 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
In Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & , the court found that the service requirement of § 33-993 had been substantially complied with where potentially defective service was remedied by the subsequent execution of an acknowledgment of receipt of service by the owner’s agent.
Columbia Group, Inc. v. HOMEOWNERS ASS'N 727 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Columbia Group, Inc. v. HOMEOWNERS ASS'N 727 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
336 , Peterman-Donnelly Engineers &amp
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Western Seed Production Corp. 580 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Western Seed Production Corp. 580 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
the name of the person by whom the lienor was employed or to whom he furnished materials.” Unlike the description requirement of the notice and claim of lien, this provision is primarily for the benefit of the owner in order that he can “investigate the claim and determine whether it is a proper charge.” Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & , Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc., 66 Nev.
Lewis v. Midway Lumber, Inc. 561 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Lewis v. Midway Lumber, Inc. 561 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Kerr-McGee Oil Industries
James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen 517 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen 517 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors *224 Corporation v. First National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix
Advanced Living Center v. T. J. Bettes Co. of California 464 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Advanced Living Center v. T. J. Bettes Co. of California 464 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
This Court stated in Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & , : “* * * [T]he lien statutes, being remedial, are to be liberally construed, (citations omitted.)