Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Colvin v. Superior Equipment Company, 392 P.2d 778.

67 citing documents.

Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., (“The doctrine of ‘business compulsion’ is merely the modern form of the common law doctrine of duress.
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 870 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 870 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc.
Northern Arizona Gas Service, Inc. v. Petrolane Transport, Inc. 702 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Northern Arizona Gas Service, Inc. v. Petrolane Transport, Inc. 702 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Sanders v. Boyer 613 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sanders v. Boyer 613 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Johnson v. American National Insurance 613 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Johnson v. American National Insurance 613 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
It is normally used to justify recovery of a voluntary payment made under duress, [citations omitted] -21
Kincheloe v. Pima County 559 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1977
Kincheloe v. Pima County 559 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1977
the Superior Equipment Company brought suit against Colvin to recover a deficiency arising from the repossession sale of a power shovel under a conditional sales contract.
Beauchamp v. Wilson 515 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Beauchamp v. Wilson 515 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Co., , Elwood Edwards Auto Sales, Inc. v. Kinsey, 123 Colo.
In Re Estate of O'Brien 502 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
In Re Estate of O'Brien 502 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tucson Industries, Incorporated v. Schwartz 501 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
Tucson Industries, Incorporated v. Schwartz 501 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
-119 , Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc., -288
Downs v. Shouse 501 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Downs v. Shouse 501 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
See, , Capital Equipment Enterprises, Inc. v. North Pier Terminal Co., 117 Ill.App.2d 264 , 254 N.E.2d 542 (1969).
Krumtum v. Burr 487 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Krumtum v. Burr 487 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See, Land-Air, Inc. v. Parker, supra
Johnson v. Franco 487 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Johnson v. Franco 487 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Estabrook v. JC PENNEY COMPANY 456 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Estabrook v. JC PENNEY COMPANY 456 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
1916F, 696 [1916]) ; , or a case of strict tort liability as described in § 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second).
Lane v. Wilkey 455 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Lane v. Wilkey 455 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bodine v. Lightning Moving & Warehouse Co., 5 Ariz.App.
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 447 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1968
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 447 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1968
The concurring opinion in the 1965 case of Nalbandian stated in part: “ , this Court adopted the modern legal concept of a manufacturer’s strict liability in tort with regard to its manufactured products.” 97 Ariz. at 287 , 399 P.2d at 686 .
Webb v. Dixon 447 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Webb v. Dixon 447 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
In that case, it was decided that, even though the judgment did not comply with the mandate of Rule 58(a) as amended Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., which requires that “[a]ll judgments shall be in writing and signed by a judge * * * ” nevertheless, the judgment would be considered as an appropriate basis for review, because of the “ * * * public importance * * * ” *458 ( , ) of the question there presented.
Land-Air, Inc. v. Parker 435 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1967
Land-Air, Inc. v. Parker 435 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1967
Under established principles of appellate procedure, we must affirm the trial court if “we can on any reasonable view of the evidence deduce therefrom facts which, on any theory of the law, would sustain the judgment.” , ; Babbitt & , 236 P. 722 .
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
At least one Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona has indicated in a concurring opinion that Arizona follows this doctrine: “ , this Court adopted the modern legal concept of a manufacturer’s strict liability in tort with regard to its manufactured products.” Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc.
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 428 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 428 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Commercial Standard Ins.
Billman v. Ace Restaurant Supply Co. 423 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Billman v. Ace Restaurant Supply Co. 423 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Glass v. Mackin 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of McConnell 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of McConnell 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
the seller brought an action for the purchaser's breach under a conditional sales contract.