Cited by

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

76 citing documents.

Bevins v. Dickson Electronics Corporation 491 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bevins v. Dickson Electronics Corporation 491 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
13 In their estoppel argument, plaintiffs rely upon both “equitable estoppel” and “promissory estoppel.” , which considered both of these remedial doctrines.
Turner v. WORTH INSURANCE COMPANY 464 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Turner v. WORTH INSURANCE COMPANY 464 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
: “ ‘A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promissee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avo
School Dist. No. 69 of Maricopa County v. Altherr 458 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
School Dist. No. 69 of Maricopa County v. Altherr 458 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
: “A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance is binding if injustice can be avoide
Irwin v. Pacific American Life Insurance Company 457 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Irwin v. Pacific American Life Insurance Company 457 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
our Supreme Court quoted from 49 Am.Jur.
Glitsos v. Kadish 418 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Glitsos v. Kadish 418 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
: “A promise which the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promissee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoid
Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
125 P. 712 , L.R.A.1916D, 880 (1912)
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer 412 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1966
Weiner v. Romley 381 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1963
Weiner v. Romley 381 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1963
Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 375 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1962
Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 375 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1962
We have indeed recognized that the defense of the Statute of Frauds may be precluded by an estoppel in pais or on equitable estoppel, , 125 P. 712 , L.R.A.1916D 880 (1912)
Ray v. Tucson Medical Center 230 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1951
Ray v. Tucson Medical Center 230 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1951
we defined a waiver as: “ * * * a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right * * * ‘waiver must be intentional and upon a consideration, or the act relied op must be such as to constitute an estoppel.’ * * * ” , .