Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cavanagh v. Kelly, 297 P.2d 1102.

34 citing documents.

Zayas v. Zayas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Zayas v. Zayas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“A benefit to the promisor or a loss or detriment to the promisee” is sufficient consideration in a contract.); Del Rio Land, (When a purchaser takes property “subject to” the mortgage, the burden of the mortgage remains on the 1 We make no determination on t
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Under these circumstances, the court held that because the tenant had “made the expenditures for the benefit of the leased land pursuant to the contract, his part of the ‘contract’ was fully performed and he was entitled to receive the offset against the rents for the lessor in spite of the fact that the agreement was not evidenced by writing.” Id.; -64, -04 (1956) (holding that alleged oral contract between purchaser and real estate broker 4 CFT v. LE Decision of the Court was removed from the
Shamrock v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shamrock v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, -64 , (installment contract created "indebtedness"); Jarvis v. Jarvis, 27 Ariz.App.
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In re MacDonald’s Estate, 4 Ariz.App.
Gomez v. Maricopa County 857 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Gomez v. Maricopa County 857 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“[A] benefit to the promisor or a loss or detriment to the promisee is good consideration for a contract.” , ( , ).
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Larson-Hegstrom & Associates, Inc. v. Jeffries 701 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Larson-Hegstrom & Associates, Inc. v. Jeffries 701 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Harbour v. Reliable Ins.
Gill v. Kreutzberg 537 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gill v. Kreutzberg 537 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Mims v. Valley National Bank 481 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mims v. Valley National Bank 481 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
] (a) The purchasing corporation agreed to pay $99,071.21 to the selling corporations, in monthly installments, and this purchase price was guaranteed individually by the officers of the purchasing corporation, and the pur
McGrath v. Bill Johnston Golf Properties, Inc. 474 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
McGrath v. Bill Johnston Golf Properties, Inc. 474 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
125 P. 712 (1912) (wholly performed employment contract) ; , (executed personalty brokerage transaction); Besse v. McHenry, 89 Mont.
Grant v. White 439 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1968
Grant v. White 439 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1968
Yarbro v. Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. 420 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1966
Yarbro v. Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. 420 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1966
we held that a benefit to a promisor or a loss or detriment to the promisee is good consideration to legally support a promise.
Kadish v. Kallof 414 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Kadish v. Kallof 414 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Stovall v. Williams 409 P.2d 711 Ariz. 1966
Stovall v. Williams 409 P.2d 711 Ariz. 1966
Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Aetna Inv.