Barrett v. Hiney
Cited by
- Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. 2024
- Marriage of Bugh v. Bugh 608 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. 1980
- In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. J-3206 590 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. 1979
- Irrigation & Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 540 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. 1975
- Turf Irr. & W. Sup. v. Mt. States Tel. & Tel. Co. 540 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. 1975
- Stevenson v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 510 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1973
- Ghyselinck v. Buchanan 474 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. 1970
- Arizona Corp. Commission v. Construction Trucking Service 473 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. 1970
- Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 473 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. 1970
- Dolph v. Cortez 446 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. 1968
- City of Tucson v. Echo Ridge Cooperative Corp. 433 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. 1967
- United Bonding Insurance v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 419 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. 1966
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Nelson v. Nelson 370 P.2d 952
- Tom v. Baca 378 P.2d 912
Opinion text
BERNSTEIN, Chief Justice. Appellant was plaintiff in a suit to collect a real estate commission. The trial court held that on most of the issues the evidence supported the plaintiff’s position but that judgment should be entered for the defendant on the ground that there was a variance in the terms of payment and that these terms did not meet the listing contract. Neither waiver nor estoppel were applicable to the facts in the case. Appellant has made numerous assignments of error challenging the judgment of the trial court. Appellee has not favored us with a brief within the time prescribed by *134 the rules, and this case has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a) 2, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S., pursuant to motion of appellant. As there are debatable issues this Court will assume the failure to file an answering brief is confession of reversible error on the part of appellee. Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215 , 370 P.2d 952 ; Tom v. Baca, 93, Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912 . Judgment reversed. UDALL, C. J., and LOCKWOOD, J., ■concur.