Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hamberlin v. Townsend, 261 P.2d 1003.

39 citing documents.

Technology Construction, Inc. v. City of Kingman 278 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Technology Construction, Inc. v. City of Kingman 278 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Furthermore, “[w]e will, if possible, interpret a contract in such a way as to reconcile and give meaning to all its terms, if reconciliation can be accomplished by any reasonable interpretation.” ¶ 13 , ( , ).
Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Ass'n 969 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Ass'n 969 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Technical Equities Corp. v. Coachman Real Estate Investment Corp. 701 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Technical Equities Corp. v. Coachman Real Estate Investment Corp. 701 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Brisco v. Meritplan Insurance 643 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Brisco v. Meritplan Insurance 643 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
108 P. 461 (1910), aff’d 233 U.S. 273 , 34 S.Ct.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION v. Brown 540 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1975
Criticized PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION v. Brown 540 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1975
New Pueblo Const., Inc. v. LAKE PATAGONIA REC. ASSOCIATION, INC. 467 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
New Pueblo Const., Inc. v. LAKE PATAGONIA REC. ASSOCIATION, INC. 467 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Restatement, Contracts § 236(d), p. 328.” 6 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Gila River Ranch, Inc. 454 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Golder v. Crain 437 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Golder v. Crain 437 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
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
Restatement, Contracts § 236(d),.
Billman v. Ace Restaurant Supply Co. 423 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Billman v. Ace Restaurant Supply Co. 423 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co. 421 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1966
Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co. 421 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1966
It is axiomatic that a contract must be construed as a whole, , , and each and every part must be read in the light of the other parts.
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
It is clear, construing this agreement as a whole, , that the intention of the parties was simply that if the Supreme Court upheld the common carrier rights of Robert Dallas, Sr., then Clarke would have an option to purchase the business for the amount of $12,000.00, with the condition that Robert Dallas, Sr., might advertise and accept a higher
Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Atkinson v. Atkinson 405 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Harford v. National Life & Casualty Insurance Company
Williams v. Long 402 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Williams v. Long 402 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
[1953], The handwriting upon the document providing for cash payment rather than payment by installments is controlling over the printed portion.
Sanitary District No. 1 of Pima County v. State Ex Rel. Willey 399 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sanitary District No. 1 of Pima County v. State Ex Rel. Willey 399 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Lunt 313 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1957
Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Lunt 313 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1957
Daily Mines Co. v. Control Mines, Inc., , .
Harford v. National Life & Casualty Insurance Co. 299 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1956
Harford v. National Life & Casualty Insurance Co. 299 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1956
Tang v. Avitable 264 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1953
Tang v. Avitable 264 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1953
An examination of such negotiations is material because it enables the court more clearly to ascertain the intent of the parties and give a proper construction to their written contract, , ; , .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by