Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Young v. Bishop, 353 P.2d 1017.

56 citing documents.

Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“[c]onclusions of law are not deemed admitted” in pleadings).
Hall v. Hardy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hall v. Hardy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
National Tax v. Rivers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
National Tax v. Rivers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc. 949 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc. 949 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
U.S. Life Title Co. v. Bliss 722 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
U.S. Life Title Co. v. Bliss 722 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Pruitt v. Pavelin 685 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 658 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 658 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
238 P. 327 (1925); A.R.S.
Angle v. Marco Builders, Inc. 626 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1981
Angle v. Marco Builders, Inc. 626 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1981
Webster v. Uslife Title Co. 598 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Webster v. Uslife Title Co. 598 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Madsen v. Fisk, 5 Ariz.App.
Allan v. Martin 574 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1978
Allan v. Martin 574 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1978
McCormack v. Kirtley 563 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1977
McCormack v. Kirtley 563 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1977
have said that: “A good definition of the generic term ‘escrow’ is this: an escrow is a written instrument which by its terms imports a legal obligation, and which is deposited with a third party, to be kept by the depository until the performance of the prescribed condition or the happening of a certain event, and then to be delivered over to the grantee, promisee, or obligee.”
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. 428 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1967
Wenrich v. Household Finance Corp. 426 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Wenrich v. Household Finance Corp. 426 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
131 , ; , ; and see Neiderhiser v. Henry’s Drive-In, Inc.
Madsen v. Fisk 423 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Madsen v. Fisk 423 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
our Supreme Court defined the word “escrow” as follows: “[A]n escrow is a written instrument which by its terms imports a legal obligation, and which is deposited with a third party, to be kept by the depository until the performance of the prescribed condition or the happening of a
T. D. Dennis Builder, Inc. v. Goff 418 P.2d 367 Ariz. 1966
T. D. Dennis Builder, Inc. v. Goff 418 P.2d 367 Ariz. 1966
LeBaron v. Crismon 412 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1966
LeBaron v. Crismon 412 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1966
Jamison v. Southern States Life Insurance Company 412 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Jamison v. Southern States Life Insurance Company 412 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
City of Glendale v. ARIZONA S. & L., IN RECEIVERSHIP 409 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
City of Glendale v. ARIZONA S. & L., IN RECEIVERSHIP 409 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
has stated: “A good definition of the generic term ‘escrow’ is this: an escrow is á written instrument which by its terms imports a legal obligation, and which is deposited with a third party, to be kept by the depository until the performance of the prescribed condition or the happening of a certain event, and then to be delivered over to the *289 grantee, promisee, or obligee.”
Higgins v. Kittleson 401 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Higgins v. Kittleson 401 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Neiderhiser v. Henry's Drive-In, Inc. 394 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1964
Neiderhiser v. Henry's Drive-In, Inc. 394 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1964
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission 381 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1963
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission 381 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1963
Taking as true the facts pleaded by plaintiff, , State ex rel.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by