Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 368 P.2d 317.

106 citing documents.

Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Where summary judgment has been granted under Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure, we are required to view the pleadings, affidavits and admissions in the light most favorable to support the losing party; , Executive Towers v. Leonard, 7 Ariz.App.
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hay v. Duskin 455 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hay v. Duskin 455 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
On motion for summary judgment, all reasonable doubts are to be resolved in favor of trial on the merits, , and this is particularly so when the subjective state of mind of a party is involved.
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
“* * * In resolving the question as to whether summary judgment should be granted, the trial court does not weigh the evidence, nor do we; but the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions, if any, must be viewed in the most favorable aspect they will bear in support of the right of the party opposing the motion to a trial of the issues.”
Almli v. Updegraff 447 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Almli v. Updegraff 447 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Pesqueira v. Talbot 441 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Clayton v. Communications Capital Corp. 440 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Clayton v. Communications Capital Corp. 440 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Executive Towers v. Leonard 439 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Executive Towers v. Leonard 439 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
* * * In resolving the question as to whether summary judgment should be granted, the trial court does not weigh the evidence, nor do we; but the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions, if any, must be viewed in the most favorable aspect they will bear in support of the right of the party opposing the motion to a trial of the issues.”
Flynn Ex Rel. Eicke v. Lindenfield 433 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Flynn Ex Rel. Eicke v. Lindenfield 433 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Peterson v.'Valley National Bank of Phoenix
Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 432 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1967
Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 432 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1967
This Court had previously reversed a summary judgment which had been granted in favor of the plaintiff, Bank, , that a trial must be held in this action since material issues of fact had been raised by the pleadings.
Pace v. Hanson 430 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Pace v. Hanson 430 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
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
Birchfield v. Thiercof 429 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Birchfield v. Thiercof 429 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Association, Inc.
Birchfield v. Thiercof 428 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Birchfield v. Thiercof 428 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Phoenix Jewish Community Council v. Leon 427 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1967
Phoenix Jewish Community Council v. Leon 427 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1967
Rule 56(c) Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; e. g., , .
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
Ellsworth v. Ellsworth 423 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Ellsworth v. Ellsworth 423 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
The first contention made on appeal is that there was an issue of fact in the lower court precluding summary judgment under the doctrine that a summary judgment should riot be granted when there is the “* * * slightest doubt as to the facts.”
State v. Ashton Company 422 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Ashton Company 422 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Ray Scottsdale Lumber Co. v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 3 Ariz.App.
Brown v. White 419 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Brown v. White 419 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Klahr v. Winterble 418 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Klahr v. Winterble 418 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Reidy v. Almich 418 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Reidy v. Almich 418 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
We note that our own Supreme Court has cited, , the case of Alvado v. General Motors Corporation, 229 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1955), cert.
Ft. Mohave Farms, Inc. v. Dunlap 393 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1964
Ft. Mohave Farms, Inc. v. Dunlap 393 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1964
Bank of Phoenix, , we stated that such a procedure is no substitute for a trial and should be denied when there is the “slightest doubt” as to the facts.