Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Knight v. Rice, 321 P.2d 1037.

55 citing documents.

Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The party asserting estoppel “has the burden of showing by clear and satisfactory proof that all the elements are present, and the acts relied upon to create it must be absolute and unequivocal.” Fridenmaker v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See id.; (“Estoppel is an affirmative defense; the party relying thereon 7 Appellants also contend that the superior court erred in finding that their claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(recognizing that the party relying on estoppel bears the burden of showing by clear and satisfactory proof that all elements of estoppel are present).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County, No. 2 CA-CV 2006-0212
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 45 Estoppel instead requires proof that one has “suffered a loss of a substantial character.” , see Weiner, 94 Ariz. at 44 , 381 P.2d at 583 (“actual and substantial” injury).
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Fotinos v. Baker 793 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Fotinos v. Baker 793 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
The references to “clear and satisfactory proof” in Desert Vista Apartments, Inc. v. O’Malley Lumber Co., , , estoppels arising in different contexts, do not “clearly” require a higher evidentiary standard.
St. Joseph's Hospital v. Reserve Life Insurance 742 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
St. Joseph's Hospital v. Reserve Life Insurance 742 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Facit-Addo, Inc. v. Davis Financial Corp. 653 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Facit-Addo, Inc. v. Davis Financial Corp. 653 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Joy Enterprises, , Desert Vista Apartments, Inc. v. O’Malley Lumber Co.
LaBarr v. Tombstone Territorial Mint 580 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
LaBarr v. Tombstone Territorial Mint 580 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
” (Emphasis added) We do not see how there can be justifiable reliance on the part of a lender when he knows the loan is usurious.
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 534 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fridenmaker v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 534 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hall v. Motorists Insurance Corporation 509 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1973
Hall v. Motorists Insurance Corporation 509 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1973
Saggau v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company 493 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Saggau v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company 493 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hayward Lumber & Investment Company v. Graham 449 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1968
Hayward Lumber & Investment Company v. Graham 449 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1968
Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Desert Vista Apartments, Inc. v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 436 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1968
Desert Vista Apartments, Inc. v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 436 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1968
* * * This is, as your honor is aware from your years in this business, something more than the ordinary burden of proof.” Since the rule is that a plaintiff in a civil case must prove estoppel only by “clear and satisfactory proof” ( , ), and not by “overwhelming evidence,” it is obvious that the trial judge applied a yardstick which was completely unjustified, and which constitutes reversible error.
Savage v. Royal Properties, Inc. 417 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Savage v. Royal Properties, Inc. 417 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
* * * ” , as well as other Arizona cases.
Nichols v. Elkins 408 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Nichols v. Elkins 408 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Contreras v. Industrial Commission 403 P.2d 535 Ariz. 1965
Contreras v. Industrial Commission 403 P.2d 535 Ariz. 1965
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Cashion Gin Company v. Kulikov 399 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Cashion Gin Company v. Kulikov 399 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
First, acts inconsistent with the claim afterwards relied on; second, action by the adverse party on the faith of such conduct; third, injury to the adverse party resulting from the repudiation of such conduct.” , the court quoted an earlier Arizona case as follows: “ ‘ * * * The essential elements of estoppel are that plaintiff, with knowledge of the facts, must have asserted a particular right inconsistent with that asserted in the instant action, to the prejudice of another who has relied u