Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Irwin v. Murphey, 302 P.2d 534.

64 citing documents.

Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Sav., (); Sherman v. First Am.
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ariz., Inc., (recovery as third-party beneficiary requires indication in contract of intent to intentionally and directly benefit that third party and third party must be primary party in interest); Sherman v. First Am.
Marco Crane & Rigging Co. v. Masaryk 341 P.3d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marco Crane & Rigging Co. v. Masaryk 341 P.3d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mechanic’s liens statutes must be strictly followed, requiring the lien claimant to demonstrate substantial compliance with each statutory requirement consistent with its purpose, ¶ 13
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Criticized Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Sav., , (contemplated benefit must be intentional and direct); , (contracting parties must intend to recognize third party as beneficiary).
Hunnicutt Construction, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496 928 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hunnicutt Construction, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496 928 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Under Arizona law, a person who is not a party to a contract can recover under that contract only if he is a primary beneficiary under the terms of the contract: The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company
MLM Const. Co., Inc. v. Pace Corp. 836 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
MLM Const. Co., Inc. v. Pace Corp. 836 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Palo Verde Mental Health Services 783 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
and ‘it must definitely appear that the parties intend to recognize the third party as the primary party in interest.’ , quoting *390 , (citations omitted).
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
: The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 15 Ariz.App.
Dorman v. Swift & Co. 757 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dorman v. Swift & Co. 757 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Old Adobe Office Properties, Ltd. v. Gin 727 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Old Adobe Office Properties, Ltd. v. Gin 727 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Reliance Insurance Co., 410 F.2d 277 (9th Cir.1969)
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The Restatement is particularly significant since our Supreme Court “has consistently held that it will generally follow the Restatement of Law unless a different rule has been pronounced by the court in prior decisions or by legislative enactment.”
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
Norton v. First Federal Savings 624 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1981
Norton v. First Federal Savings 624 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1981
The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 15 Ariz.App.
Page v. Allstate Insurance Company 614 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Page v. Allstate Insurance Company 614 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
McGuire v. Arizona Protection Agency 609 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
McGuire v. Arizona Protection Agency 609 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Clarke v. Asarco Inc. 601 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Clarke v. Asarco Inc. 601 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Lewis v. Midway Lumber, Inc. 561 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Lewis v. Midway Lumber, Inc. 561 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Williams v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc., 13 Ariz.App.
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company 485 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company 485 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971