Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barr v. Petzhold, 273 P.2d 161.

41 citing documents.

Gerardi v. Siddens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Juenger v. Nyahay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juenger v. Nyahay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
to the very activity that is the basis of [the] claim.” , see also Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, , disapproved on other grounds by Valley Med.
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, , Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, , , , , , 224 P. 284 (1924); , Wallin v. Scottsdale Plumbing Co., 27 Ariz.App.
American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Parmeter 925 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Parmeter 925 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ltd. v. Peairs 790 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ltd. v. Peairs 790 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
Tovrea v. Umphress 556 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Tovrea v. Umphress 556 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Everson v. Everson 537 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
He would use his salary, which is considered to be community property as it is the result of personal efforts, , to fund a joint household account to pay rent, utilities and general household expenses.
Weller v. Weller 480 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Weller v. Weller 480 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
we said- “This court recognizes as meritorious the defense of laches.
Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nace v. Nace 432 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
29 A.L.R.2d 518 (1951); , , and Estate of Torrey
Patterson v. Patterson 432 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
Patterson v. Patterson 432 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1967
Patchett v. DiVito 412 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Patchett v. DiVito 412 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
we find the following statements with reference to laches, on page 406 of the Arizona Reports, on page 165 of 273 P.2d: “This court recognizes as meritorious the defense of laches.
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
Corp., , , were laches cases and the former held a minority stockholder guilty of laches though the suit was brought within the statute of limitations.
England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
England v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 383 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1963
Grady v. Price 383 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1963
Grady v. Price 383 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1963
Under these circumstances, the funds are presumed to be community funds
Preston v. Denkins 382 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1963
Preston v. Denkins 382 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1963
Smith v. Neely, No. 6975, Ariz., March 27, 1963, ; , .
Weiner v. Romley 381 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1963
Weiner v. Romley 381 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1963
564 (E.D.Pa.1962) ; , ; Ferrick v. Barry, 320 Mass. 217 , 68 N.E.2d 690 (1946); Frazier v. Mansfield, 305 Pa.
Smith v. Neely 380 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1963
Smith v. Neely 380 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1963
The general rule is that “for the doctrine of clean hands to apply to bar a claim, it is necessary that the act of unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff relate to the very activity that is the basis of his claim.” , .