Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rogers v. Greer, 219 P.2d 760.

34 citing documents.

Seguridad v. Wheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Seguridad v. Wheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Bayless Mkts., Inc., ( and Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc., ).
Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶13 “The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and also the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Goats v. A. J. Bayless Mkts., Inc., ( and Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc., ).
Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Motta v. Flagstar Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (citations omitted); (“[T]he trial court, sitting without a jury, is judge of the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.”) ().
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n 943 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hall v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n 943 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Reynolds v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 17 Ariz.App.
R & M Oxford Construction, Inc. v. Smith 836 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
R & M Oxford Construction, Inc. v. Smith 836 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Greenwell v. Spellman 516 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1973
Greenwell v. Spellman 516 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1973
Reynolds v. United Producers & Consumers Co-Operative 495 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Reynolds v. United Producers & Consumers Co-Operative 495 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The trial court, sitting without a jury, is judge of the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, , and where there is reasonable evidence to support the judgment of the trial court it will be upheld.
Goats v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 481 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Goats v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 481 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
Condos v. Felder 377 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1962
ere actual fraud does not exist in the acquisition of property, a constructive trust will arise whenever the circumstances make it inequitable that the property should be retained by the one who holds the legal title.” Then with regard to such a trust being imposed on land we said: “ * * * Although the statute of fraud prohibits the enforcement of an express parol trust in lands, , , it has no application to constructive trusts which arise by operation of law and not by agreement.” 3 , that when
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
Merryweather v. Pendleton 367 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1962
modified on rehearing, , , 185 P. 361 (1919).
Britz v. Kinsvater 351 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1960
Britz v. Kinsvater 351 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1960
Farrell v. West, *391 , ; , 185 P. 361 ; , 188 P. 131 .
Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
Although the statute of fraud prohibits the enforcement of an express parol trust in lands, , , it has no application to constructive trusts which arise by operation of law and not by agreement.
De Wulf v. Bissell 316 P.2d 492 Ariz. 1957
De Wulf v. Bissell 316 P.2d 492 Ariz. 1957
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
It is not clear on what basis this and concurring later cases were decided, , ; it is suggested the basis of these decisions is something other than the parol evidence rule.
Todaro v. Gardner 231 P.2d 435 Ariz. 1951
Todaro v. Gardner 231 P.2d 435 Ariz. 1951