Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marshall v. Patzman, 306 P.2d 287.

28 citing documents.

Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
251 P. 453, 456 (1926); Armstrong v. Irwin, 26 * , 221 P. 222, 225 (1923).
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 366 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 366 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
168 Ariz. at 300 , 812 P.2d at 1118 ( , ).
Pima Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Rampello 812 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Pima Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Rampello 812 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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
Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 356; Restatement (First) of Contracts, § 339; , Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or.
Aztec Film Productions, Inc. v. Quinn 569 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Aztec Film Productions, Inc. v. Quinn 569 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem 567 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem 567 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Thermo-Kinetic Corporation v. Allen 493 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Thermo-Kinetic Corporation v. Allen 493 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Eisele v. Kowal 465 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Eisele v. Kowal 465 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Brady v. Black Mountain Investment Co. 459 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1969
Brady v. Black Mountain Investment Co. 459 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1969
LeBaron v. Crismon 412 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1966
LeBaron v. Crismon 412 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1966
Jamison v. Franklin Life Ins.
Deuel v. McCollum 400 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Deuel v. McCollum 400 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Under these circumstances, the law in Arizona is as follows: “ * * * [I]t is the law that a special provision written into a contract will prevail over the general provisions thereof, , , and if the written provisions in a contract are inconsistent with printed provisions, the written matter deliberately added by the parties must prevail.” at 51 , at 252 (1957).
Patzman v. Marshall 363 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1961
Patzman v. Marshall 363 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1961
The plaintiff, Marshall, appealed, and this Court, , , reversed the case holding that the liquidated damages were, in fact, an unreasonable penalty and remanded it back to the trial court with instructions to determine what damages, if any, resulted from plaintiff’s breach of the contract.
Hassenpflug v. Hart 360 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1961
Hassenpflug v. Hart 360 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1961
and many cases holding that if a vendee has made substantial improvements in reliance on a contract, relief will be granted.
Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 352 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1960
Revles v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 352 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1960