Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Holmes v. Graves, 318 P.2d 354.

62 citing documents.

CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
Our past decisions have also stated that parties may waive statutory rights granted solely for the benefit of individuals, Holmes v. Graves, 83 Ariz. 174, 178, but rights enacted for the benefit of the public may not be waived, Elson Dev.
Pi'ikea, LLC v. Williamson 321 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Pi'ikea, LLC v. Williamson 321 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(finding unambiguous waiver of suretyship defense and noting “[i]t is well settled that most rights may be waived”); (“Statutory provisions enacted for the benefit of individuals may be so far waived by those for whose benefit they were enacted that they are estopped to insist upon their protection.”); Restatement § 6 & cmt.
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-57 (1957) (procedural rule requiring a creditor to provide a detailed accounting in order to recover on an open account is for private benefit of debtor and may be waived by debtor); , (guarantors could *116 waiv
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dunn v. Progress Industries, Inc.
Camelback Del Este Home-Owners Ass'n v. Warner 749 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Camelback Del Este Home-Owners Ass'n v. Warner 749 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
McClellan Mortgage Co. v. Storey 704 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McClellan Mortgage Co. v. Storey 704 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
“[sjtatutory provisions enacted for the benefit of individuals may be so far waived by those for whose benefit they were enacted that they are estopped to insist upon their protection.” 83 Ariz. at 178 , 318 P.2d at 357 .
Milberger v. Chaney Building Co. 704 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Milberger v. Chaney Building Co. 704 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
G & S INVESTMENTS v. Belman 700 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
G & S INVESTMENTS v. Belman 700 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Mobile Discount Corp. v. Schumacher 676 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Mobile Discount Corp. v. Schumacher 676 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Honeywell, Inc. v. Arnold Const. Co., Inc. 654 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Honeywell, Inc. v. Arnold Const. Co., Inc. 654 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
“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.”
Croaff v. Evans 636 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Croaff v. Evans 636 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Phoenix Sand & Rock, Inc. 569 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Phoenix Sand & Rock, Inc. 569 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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.”
Donaldson v. LeNore 540 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
Donaldson v. LeNore 540 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
Appellants seek to avoid the necessity of proving reliance, an element normally required of estoppels, , by invoking quasi estoppel.
Graham v. Asbury 540 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1975
Graham v. Asbury 540 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
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
Albert v. Joralemon, 271 F.2d 236 (9th Cir.1959)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baird's Bread Co. 499 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baird's Bread Co. 499 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
However, appellee contends that only three elements are recognized in Arizona as constituting the defense of equitable es-toppel, false representation not being among them, , which Folds: “Estoppel .
Freeman v. Wilson 485 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1971
Freeman v. Wilson 485 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1971
The doctrine of estoppel in pais, , 318 F.2d 354 (1957); Munger *277 v. Boardman, , is inapplicable to the oral agreement since the partial payments and promises made by defendant related solely to monies due on the promissory notes.
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
Cocke v. Cocke 474 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cocke v. Cocke 474 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Irwin v. Pacific American Life Insurance Company 457 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Irwin v. Pacific American Life Insurance Company 457 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Herman Chanen Construction Co. v. Northwest Title and Terrazzo Company of Montana, 6 Ariz.App.
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967