Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Richards Development Company v. Sligh, 358 P.2d 329.

36 citing documents.

Bess v. Speno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bess v. Speno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McCutchin v. SCA Services of Arizona, Inc. 709 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
McCutchin v. SCA Services of Arizona, Inc. 709 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc. 693 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc. 693 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Smith v. Melson, Inc. 659 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Smith v. Melson, Inc. 659 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
*137 , (“parol evidence is not admissible to aid in the interpretation of the parties’ intentions until the four corners of the writing itself have been searched to determine whether the document itself affords a reasonably clear understanding of what the parties have agreed to do.”) with McCo
Combs v. Lufkin 598 P.2d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Combs v. Lufkin 598 P.2d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc. 572 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc. 572 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 551 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 551 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc. 508 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc. 508 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Limberopoulos v. Tom Fannin and Associates 495 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Limberopoulos v. Tom Fannin and Associates 495 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See also, , Cf., Merritt v. Walter Pocock Associates Brokers, Inc.
Vinnell Corp. v. State ex rel. Skousen 490 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Vinnell Corp. v. State ex rel. Skousen 490 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
: “The parol evidence rule, * * * excludes the use of parol evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract.
Davies v. Courtney 463 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Davies v. Courtney 463 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Arthen v. Chilleen 437 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1968
Arthen v. Chilleen 437 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1968
Lyon v. Big Bend Development Co. 435 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Lyon v. Big Bend Development Co. 435 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Our Supreme Court has said: “ * * * parol evidence is not admissible to aid in the interpretation of the parties’ intentions until the four corners of the writing itself have been searched to determine whether the document itself affords a reasonably clear understanding of what the parties have agreed to do.”