Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Porter v. Eyer, 294 P.2d 661.

46 citing documents.

Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, e.g., Royal Indemnity Co. of New York v. Business Factors, Inc.
Maricopa Turf, Inc. v. Sunmaster, Inc. 842 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Maricopa Turf, Inc. v. Sunmaster, Inc. 842 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, e.g., Royal Indemnity Co. of New York v. Business Factors, Inc., , , Commercial Standard Ins.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. Arizona Department of Transportation 838 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. Arizona Department of Transportation 838 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
stated as follows: Such a bond must be given the effect which in reason must have been intended by the statute.
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ruth v. Industrial Comm’n
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App.
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction Inc. 630 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1981
Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction Inc. 630 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1981
We disagree and hold that under Arizona authority the law is read into the bond., “The law is well settled that if a surety makes a contract with the law before him the law enters into and becomes a part of the agreement.” , see United States Fidelity &amp
State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App.
B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Construction Co. 597 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Construction Co. 597 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
The evolution of the contractor’s
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bross 578 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bross 578 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
and authorities cited therein.
State v. Donovan 568 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Donovan 568 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Christoffel 566 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Christoffel 566 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Mead v. Nacey 531 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Mead v. Nacey 531 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Arnold v. Knettle 460 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arnold v. Knettle 460 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Costanzo v. Stewart 453 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Costanzo v. Stewart 453 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
134 , (forbearance of exercising lien for promise to pay held a valid agreement on doctrine promissory estoppel between landowner and materialmen); , , (1963) (materialman can sue on contractor’s license bond and on lien for excess); , (materialman can sue on contractor’s completion bond).
Badley v. Towle 451 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Badley v. Towle 451 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp. 442 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1968
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp. 442 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1968
236 of Restatement of the Law, Contracts: “(a) An interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all manifestations of intention is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part of such manifestations unreasonable, unlawful or of no effect.” , ; , ; and Ed Stearman & Sons, Inc. v. State ex rel.
Bayham v. Maryland National Insurance Company 415 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Bayham v. Maryland National Insurance Company 415 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Hirsch 385 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1963
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Hirsch 385 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1963
which held that under the original section covering the samé subject matter a materialman could recover directly from the insurance company for materials furnished to a subcontractor.
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
It is true that where a bond is given under the authority of a statute, the statute constitutes a part of the bond, , ; , ; and this bond was given pursuant to the requirements of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by