Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Decker v. Hendricks, 396 P.2d 609.

54 citing documents.

In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(estoppel); , -32 (App.1998) (laches).
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(estoppel); -32 (App. 1998) (laches).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Flying Diamond Airpark, , 156 P.3d at 1152 (“ ‘[Ejquitable discretion should not be used to protect an intentional wrongdoer.’ ”), -42
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg 156 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg 156 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
But “[ejquitable remedies are a matter of grace and not of right and equitable discretion should not be used to protect an intentional wrongdoer.” -42
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
That delay and alleged prejudice provide the underpinning for Lake Havasu’s laches and estoppel claims, , (laches requires proof of injury because of another party’s lack of diligence); Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , (equitable estoppel requires proof of reliance upon another’s conduct to one’s detriment), but we do not find that the dela
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Turner 2 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Turner 2 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 10 ACEMA points out that the Turners knowingly undertook their grading and filling without approval and that “Equitable discretion should not be used to protect an intentional wrongdoer.” -42
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dunn v. Progress Industries, Inc.
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 798 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 798 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES “[Ejquity will enforce the terms of restrictive covenants unless the changes in the surrounding areas are so fundamental or radical as to defeat or frustrate the original purposes of the restrictions.”
Camelback Del Este Home-Owners Ass'n v. Warner 749 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Camelback Del Este Home-Owners Ass'n v. Warner 749 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
(“Decker I”), and Decker v. Hendricks, 7 Ariz.App.
Goodman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 670 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Goodman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 670 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Leon v. Byus 565 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Leon v. Byus 565 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Following the reasoning in Condos , the court, , held that a restrictive covenant would be enforced “unless the change in the surrounding area is so fundamental or radical as to defeat or frustrate the original purpose of the restrictions.” P.2d 609 (1964); Carter v. Conroy, 25 Ariz.App.
Riley v. Stoves 526 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Riley v. Stoves 526 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
In Re Adoption of Frantz 515 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In Re Adoption of Frantz 515 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the three elements of equitable estoppel are as follows: "(1) affirmative acts inconsistent with a claim afterwards relied upon, (2) action by a party relying on such conduct and (3) injury to the party resulting from a *601 repudiation of such conduct."
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the three elements of equitable estoppel are as follows: “(1) affirmative acts inconsistent with a claim afterwards relied upon, (2) action by a party relying on such conduct and (3) injury to the party resulting from a *601 repudiation of such conduct.” 97 Ariz. at 40 , 396 P.2d at 611 .
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baird's Bread Co. 499 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baird's Bread Co. 499 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
To the same effect, , Herman Chanen Const. Co. v. Northwest Tile & Terrazzo Co., , , Cashion Gin Co. v. Kulikov, 1 Ariz.App.
DeCoste v. Superior Court 470 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1970
DeCoste v. Superior Court 470 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1970
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
Garcia v. Frey 442 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Garcia v. Frey 442 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Decker v. Hendricks 436 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Decker v. Hendricks 436 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Sahlin v. AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA. 423 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Sahlin v. AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA. 423 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Cashion Gin v. Kulikov, 1 Ariz.App.
Longshaw v. Corbitt 420 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Longshaw v. Corbitt 420 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Decker v. City of Tucson 419 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Decker v. City of Tucson 419 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
his case having come on to be heard on motion of certain answering defendants for a summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court having considered the pleadings in the action, the affidavits in support of said motion, the deposition of the plaintiff Claude C. Simmonds, the exhibits and the matters previously adjudicated in Decker; et al. v. Hendricks; et al, , , the Court *272 having heard the arguments of counsel and due deliberation having been had thereo