Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. Farrah, 180 P.2d 578.

28 citing documents.

Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Miller v. McAlister 728 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Miller v. McAlister 728 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
must be clear and positive,” , which is an analogous standard.
Tena v. Yorgulez 538 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Tena v. Yorgulez 538 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
there are no equities in favor of one claiming by adverse possession.
Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.App.
Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
“ * * * [A] claimant * * * must show such open, notorious, continuous, and visible adverse occupation and use under a claim of ownership as would constitute that adverse possession, use or enjoyment by which either the presumption or the fact of notice and acquiescence upon the part of the title owner would arise to bar his right.” , [Emphasis added.]
Phoenix Jewish Community Council v. Leon 427 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1967
Phoenix Jewish Community Council v. Leon 427 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1967
In an effort to clarify this term, , , we said: “Adverse possession is defined by Section 29-107, A.C.A.
Nicholas v. Giles 426 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1967
Nicholas v. Giles 426 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1967
“ * * * a claimant, relying upon this statute, must show such open, notorious, continuous, and visible adverse occupation and use under claim of ownership as would constitute that adverse possession, use, or enjoyment by which either the presumption or the fact of notice and acquiescence upon the part of the title owner would arise to bar his right.” , .
Busby v. State ex rel. Herman 409 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Busby v. State ex rel. Herman 409 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Fritts v. Ericson 349 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1960
Fritts v. Ericson 349 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1960
Montierth v. State Land Department 324 P.2d 228 Ariz. 1958
Montierth v. State Land Department 324 P.2d 228 Ariz. 1958
Let us examine the record, for, under the familiar rule, where there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the lower court’s findings of fact, this court will not disturb those findings even though there was also contradictory evidence, , ; , ; , ; , .
Sturges v. Tongeland 317 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1957
Sturges v. Tongeland 317 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1957