Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Waugh v. Lennard, 211 P.2d 806.

76 citing documents.

Hammer v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hammer v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-14 (1949); Edward Greenband Enters.
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Without an explanation as to why it would control here, he cites a single case in support of his argument
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
“Waiver is defined as a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, 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.” , (citations omitted).
Fotinos v. Baker 793 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Fotinos v. Baker 793 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
125 P. 712 (1912); Del Rio Land
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Reserve Life Insurance 742 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1987
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Reserve Life Insurance 742 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1987
G & S Invest, v. Belman, 145 Ariz. at 263 , 700 P.2d at 1363 .
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Wolfswinkels argue that by its own conduct, North Star should be estopped from asserting any limitation, , in this case a limitation on the enforcement of the judgment.
G & S INVESTMENTS v. Belman 700 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
G & S INVESTMENTS v. Belman 700 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Chewning v. Palmer 650 P.2d 438 Ariz. 1982
Chewning v. Palmer 650 P.2d 438 Ariz. 1982
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 640 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
: “The well-recognized rule is that a misrepresentation as to a matter of law will not ordinarily support an action for fraud or deceit, noi* constitute an estoppel to rely upon the statute of limitations.
Christy v. Hoke 618 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Christy v. Hoke 618 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. 577 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. 577 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 574 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 574 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Gene Hancock Construction Co. v. Kempton & Snedigar Dairy, 20 Ariz.App.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Schmuhl 559 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1976
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Schmuhl 559 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1976
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
According to the law it is not whose name the property is in that counts but from where the money came from that paid for the property, and as it was your money that paid for the investment, thay [sic] will continue to be your separate property.” The doctrine of promissory estoppel, , is enunciated in Restatement of Contracts, § 90 (1932) as follows : “A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the
Graham v. Asbury 540 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1975
Graham v. Asbury 540 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1975
Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper 538 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1975
Edward Greenband Enterprises of Arizona v. Pepper 538 P.2d 389 Ariz. 1975
-814 , we held: “The possibility of performance within one year is sufficient to take such an oral agreement out of the operation of the statute of frauds.” And in Co-op Dairy, , we approved the statement in 2 Corbin on Contracts, p. 534, that th
Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 534 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 534 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Lininger v. Sonenblick 532 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Ceizyk v. Goar Service & Supply, Inc. 516 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Ceizyk v. Goar Service & Supply, Inc. 516 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by