Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heywood v. Ziol, 372 P.2d 200.

52 citing documents.

Helmer v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Helmer v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cruger v. Blansette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Cruger v. Blansette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶11 A forcible detainer action “is a statutory proceeding, the object of which is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.”
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 12–1171(3); (noting that the issue of possession “can only be 5 S & S HOLDINGS v. AMERICAN GREEN Decision of the Court determined after a presentation of the facts and attending circumstances upon which the right to possession is cl
Secure Ventures v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secure Ventures v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶16 A forcible detainer action is a statutory proceeding, “the object of which is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.”
Sutto, Jr. v. Bonham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sutto, Jr. v. Bonham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
According to Bonham, this purported statutory violation voids the trustee’s sale and the Suttos therefore have no lawful claim against him.1 ¶6 A forcible detainer action is a statutory proceeding, “the object of which is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.”
Partners v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Partners v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bank of Ny v. St. John Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bank of Ny v. St. John Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶7 “[F]orcible entry and detainer is a statutory proceeding, the object of which is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.”
Deutsche Bank v. Bilyea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Deutsche Bank v. Bilyea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶5 “[F]orcible entry and detainer is a statutory proceeding, the object of which is to provide a summary, speedy and adequate means for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession.”
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc. 880 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc. 880 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
DVM Co. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd.
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 784 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 784 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
in which the court noted the facts showed two unilateral mistakes existed since each party was laboring under a different interpretation of the legal effect of the contract provision in dispute.
Buckmaster v. Dent 707 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Buckmaster v. Dent 707 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
in which the court noted the facts showed two unilateral mistakes existed since each party was laboring under a different interpretation of the legal effect of the contract provision in dispute.
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. 671 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1983
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd. 671 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1983
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Lerner v. Brettschneider 598 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Lerner v. Brettschneider 598 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Tucker v. Byler 558 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Tucker v. Byler 558 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
In support of this contention
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 547 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 547 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Further, though the action in forcible detainer deals essentially with *206 the issue of possession, , we find that there is nothing which specifically limits it to that adjudication where both parties stipulated to broader relief.
Gifford v. Makaus 540 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1975
Gifford v. Makaus 540 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1975
We hold the trial court did not err in concluding that there was no meeting of the minds and for that reason the option to renew was void.”
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 507 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 507 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Further, though the action in forcible detainer deals essentially with the issue ■of possession, , we find that ■.there is nothing which specifically limits it .to that adjudication where both parties .stipulated to broader relief.
Balmer v. Gagnon 504 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Balmer v. Gagnon 504 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
We further believe that, because the statutory action of forcible entry and detainer is well recognized to have been adopted to provide a summary and speedy remedy for obtaining possession of premises illegally withheld, , , the procedural language of the statute is substantive in nature and an integral part of the right itself.
Denbo v. Badger 503 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Denbo v. Badger 503 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
“It is elementary that before there can be a binding' contract there must be mutual consent of the parties to the terms thereof.” , *428 (1962).
Turner v. WORTH INSURANCE COMPANY 464 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Turner v. WORTH INSURANCE COMPANY 464 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
However, “there must be a distinct intention common to both and without doubt or difference and until all understand alike there can be no assent.”
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Cannon v. Arizona Game & Fish Commission, , and see 50 C.J.S.
Casa Grande Trust Company v. Superior Court 444 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Casa Grande Trust Company v. Superior Court 444 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968