Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Glad Tidings Church of America v. Hinkley, 226 P.2d 1016.

30 citing documents.

Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
2010) (explaining that despite contract language disclaiming lien rights, the purchasers could still “assert an equitable vendee’s lien in order to aid recovery” of their deposits for “the purpose of justice”); (explaining that equitable remedies are dependent on the discretion of the court).
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
at 284 , 233 P.2d at 840 ( , Phoenix Title & , ).
Schaeffer v. Chapman 861 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1993
Schaeffer v. Chapman 861 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1993
Co., , P.2d 1016 (1951).
MacIborski v. Chase Service Corp. 779 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
MacIborski v. Chase Service Corp. 779 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See generally Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, , 477, , 156 (1978)
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 780 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 780 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(a party must strictly comply with the contract in order to enforce a forfeiture provision).
Esplendido Apartments v. Olsson 697 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Esplendido Apartments v. Olsson 697 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
our supreme court in dealing with a quiet title action brought by a seller against a buyer based on a contract for the sale and purchase of real property, adopted the following rule: A vendor must tender a deed or at least indicate that he is ready, willing and able to tender and deliver a deed
Bowcut v. Jaarsma 653 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1982
Bowcut v. Jaarsma 653 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1982
Freedman v. Continental Service Corp. 622 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Freedman v. Continental Service Corp. 622 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Jahnke v. Palomar Financial Corporation 527 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Jahnke v. Palomar Financial Corporation 527 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
As to defects in notice, the Supreme Court, , held: “ .
Trevillian v. Lee 527 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1974
Trevillian v. Lee 527 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1974
Alger v. Brighter Days Min *232 ing Corp.
Hale v. Flores 506 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hale v. Flores 506 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Ensign v. Bohn 403 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Ensign v. Bohn 403 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sturm v. Heim 389 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1964
Sturm v. Heim 389 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1964
Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co. 233 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1951
Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co. 233 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1951
Joshu v. Wahl 228 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1951
Joshu v. Wahl 228 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1951
This court also has recently stated, “Neither party can deceive the other into a belief that prompt performance will not be required and then demand it if he would seek the aid of equity on his side”, , .