Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Unruh v. Industrial Commission, 301 P.2d 1029.

27 citing documents.

Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
Comm’n, see also Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, –77 ¶ 13 MCLAUGHLIN V. JONES (MCLAUGHLIN) Opinion of the Court 35 (1998) (“The three elements of equitable estoppel are traditionally stated as: (1) th
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Comm’n, MCLAUGHLIN v. JONES Opinion of the Court 1029, 1031 (1956) (rejecting dissolution litigant’s claim where “conscience of the court” repelled by assertion of rights inconsistent with litigant’s past conduct).
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cf. Unruh v. Industrial Comm’n, -21 , (applying quasi estoppel to widow's claim).
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Commission 542 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
stopped from reclaiming the benefits she would otherwise be entitled to reclaim, , , , and followed by this Court in State Compensation Fund v. Reed, 12 Ariz.App.
Donaldson v. LeNore 540 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
Donaldson v. LeNore 540 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
Sailes v. Jones, 17 Ariz.App.
Carranza v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Carranza v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
where the court refused to give a wife the benefit of the patent invalidity of a Mexican divorce where she had previously asserted rights under that divorce.
Burnside v. Runstetler 504 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Burnside v. Runstetler 504 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
involving a “mail-order divorce” in which the “Mexican court did not have the slightest semblance of jurisdiction to adjudicate the marital status of the parties” our Supreme Court upheld the Mexican decree on the basis of quasi or equitable estoppel stating: “There are certain principles recogn
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
As authority for her position
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Cord 482 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Estate of Trigg 426 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1967
In Re Estate of Trigg 426 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1967
Bartholomew v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bartholomew v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
*53 , the Supreme Court said: “The doctrine of estoppel has often been applied to marital controversies in this state, (citations) * * * It precludes a party from asserting a right inconsistent with the position previously taken to the prejudice of another acting in reliance thereon.” (Emphasis added
Cross v. Cross 381 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963
Cross v. Cross 381 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963
Graybar Electric Company v. McClave 371 P.2d 350 Ariz. 1962
Graybar Electric Company v. McClave 371 P.2d 350 Ariz. 1962
There the conscience of the court is repelled by the assertion of rights inconsistent *227 with a litigant’s past conduct.” , .
City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by