Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fish v. Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix, 167 P.2d 107.

28 citing documents.

ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gorham v. Gorham 830 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Gorham v. Gorham 830 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Murray v. Zerbel 764 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Murray v. Zerbel 764 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
“There must be an annexation to the realty or something appurtenant thereto; the chattel must have adaptability or application as affixed to the use for which the real estate is appropriated; and there must be an intention of the party to make the chattel a permanent accession to the freehold.”
Chapline v. North American Acceptance Corp. 544 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Chapline v. North American Acceptance Corp. 544 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Amos Flight Operations, Inc. v. Thunderbird Bank 540 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1975
Amos Flight Operations, Inc. v. Thunderbird Bank 540 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1975
Jennings v. Lee 461 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1969
Jennings v. Lee 461 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1969
Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc. 433 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc. 433 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Bank of Phoenix, , 17 Am.Jur.
Mortensen v. Berzell Investment Company 429 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1967
Mortensen v. Berzell Investment Company 429 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1967
Williams v. Long 402 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Williams v. Long 402 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Fixtures § 13, p. 621; , [1946], While the court holds that relief under Count Two of the complaint is untenable, in view of the express provisions of the written contract, it is of the opinion that Count Three is good and that there was sufficient evidence for the court to grant relief thereunder.
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Tombstone 401 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Tombstone 401 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bank of Phoenix, , 167 P 2d 107, 111 (1946), the Supreme Court of Arizona has laid down the general test to determine whether a chattel which has in some manner been affixed to realty shall become a part thereof or retain its status as personalty.
Mahurin v. Schmeck 390 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1964
Mahurin v. Schmeck 390 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1964
Gomez v. Dykes 359 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1961
Gomez v. Dykes 359 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1961
Bank of Phoenix, , , 111: “The mere affixing of personal property to real estate may or may not cause it to lose its personal characteristics.
Voight v. Ott 341 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1959
Voight v. Ott 341 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1959
Bank of Phoenix, , , as follows: “ * * * The mere affixing of personal property to real estate may or may not cause it to lose its personal characteristics.
City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer 280 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1955
City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer 280 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1955
this court has correctly laid down the general test to determine whether a chattel which has in some manner been affixed to realty shall become a part thereof or retain its status as personalty.