DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Brandt's Estate, 190 P.2d 497.

33 citing documents.

  • Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
  • Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
    Moreover, construing the stipulation in light of the surrounding circumstances, see Brandt’s Estate, , we find it difficult to believe that Riebe consented to the dismissal without knowing that Lewis would be able to take advantage of the new statute.
  • Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
  • Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
    It covers both general civil and probate with the probate appeals appearing in subsection J. We have previously held that “the rules of civil procedure govern in probate proceedings.” In Re Brandt’s Estate
  • Weller v. Weller 480 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Weller v. Weller 480 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    Cf. In re Brandt’s Estate
  • Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Rule 7(a), Rule 12(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; In re Brandt’s Estate
  • Miller v. Schafer 432 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1967
  • Miller v. Schafer 432 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1967
    The situation is covered by our language in In re Brandt’s Estate, , in which we said: “A stipulation must he construed in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties and in view of the result which they were attempting to accomplish.
  • Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Lindus v. Northern Insurance 429 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Lindus v. Northern Insurance 429 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    Waiver is a “voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.” In re Brandt’s Estate, , and Arizona Title Guarantee and Trust Co. v. Modern Homes, Inc.
  • Morgan v. Hays 426 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1967
  • Sandoval v. Chenoweth 410 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Sandoval v. Chenoweth 410 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    Under systems of pleading which permit no replication or reply, the rule, stated supra § 153(1), *556 requiring estoppel to be pleaded in .avoidance of a defense, has no application, and if plaintiff claims an estoppel against the defense set up in defendant’s answer, he is entitled to give evidence concerning it without special pleading.” And in In re Brandts’ Estate, , the court after stating that a counter-claim is required to be denominated as such before a responsive pleading is required sa
  • Loya v. Fong 404 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Loya v. Fong 404 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    The first of these is that the stipulations in question should receive a “fair and liberal construction” [In re Brandt’s Estate, , ], and that when so construed it is apparent that the defendant intended to maintain its denial of any sale to the plaintiffs.
  • Gear v. City of Phoenix 379 P.2d 972 Ariz. 1963
  • Gear v. City of Phoenix 379 P.2d 972 Ariz. 1963
  • Bohmfalk v. Vaughan 357 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1960
  • Bohmfalk v. Vaughan 357 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1960
    In re Brandt’s Estate, , .
  • Maestro Music, Inc. v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Company 354 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1960
  • City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957
  • Eggerth v. Forselius 311 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1957
  • Eggerth v. Forselius 311 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1957
    Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(a); , .
  • In Re Cassidy's Estate 270 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1954
  • In Re Cassidy's Estate 270 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1954
    This has been construed to mean that the Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern probate proceedings absent an express provision in the probate code, In re Brandt's Estate (Brandt v. Brandt), , ; In re Estate of Sorrells (Sorrells v. Bergier), , ; cf. Sanders v. Sanders, supra.
  • Morgan v. Bruce 259 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1953
  • Morgan v. Bruce 259 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1953
    A.C.A.1939; In re Brandt’s Estate, , .
  • Waugh v. Lennard 211 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1949
  • Waugh v. Lennard 211 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1949
    Waiver is defined as a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, Home Owners’ , ; In re Brandt’s Estate, , , whereas “estoppel” means that a party is precluded by his own acts from asserting a right to the detriment of another who, entitled to rely on such conduct, has acted thereon.