Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Builders Supply Corporation v. Shipley, 341 P.2d 940.

44 citing documents.

Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See id.; (conducting the same analysis).
Vermillion v. AAA Pro Moving & Storage 704 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Vermillion v. AAA Pro Moving & Storage 704 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Matter of Pima Cty., Juvenile Action, Etc. 631 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1981
In re the Appeal in Pima County 631 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1981
In re the Appeal in Pima County 631 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1981
See, e. g., , Gillespie Land &amp
Matter of Pima Cty., Juvenile Action, Etc. 631 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1981
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 629 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 629 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Daniel v. Magma Copper Co. 620 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Daniel v. Magma Copper Co. 620 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Henderson v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 581 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Henderson v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 581 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Horizon Corp. v. Weinberg, 23 Ariz.App.
Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
Larsen v. Motor Supply Co. 573 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Larsen v. Motor Supply Co. 573 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
our Supreme Court stated: [Wjhere a contract for personal services contains no time limit it may be terminated by either party, thus leaving the parties free to enter into a new contract with different terms for the same services.
Horizon Corporation v. Weinberg 531 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Horizon Corporation v. Weinberg 531 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Restatement, Agency 2d, § 442
Aritex Land Company v. Baker 482 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Aritex Land Company v. Baker 482 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
Kemp v. Pinal County 442 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Kemp v. Pinal County 442 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Notwithstanding the wide discretion vested in the trial court to rule on the admissibility of business records, , -943 (1959), we do not think that, in view of all of the circumstances here, these records could reasonably satisfy the general requirement of the Uniform Act that “ * * * the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.” We hold that the records
Merrick v. United States Rubber Co. 440 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Merrick v. United States Rubber Co. 440 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
the Arizona Supreme Court recognized that a wide discretion rests in the trial court in the admission of business records.
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Baker v. South Coast Life Insurance 427 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Baker v. South Coast Life Insurance 427 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corporation 411 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corporation 411 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
City of Phoenix v. Boggs 403 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
City of Phoenix v. Boggs 403 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Steele v. Vanderslice 367 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1961
Steele v. Vanderslice 367 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1961
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
See also Builders Supply Corporation v. Shipley, 1959, , .