Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass'n, 387 P.2d 801.

58 citing documents.

Aerial Funding v. Van Sickle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aerial Funding v. Van Sickle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Downtown Parking Ass’n, (quoting Domus Realty Corp. v. 3440 Realty Co., 40 N.Y.S.2d 69, 73-74 (Special Term 1943)).
Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Downtown Parking Ass’n, (“One who seeks equity must do equity.”).
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Downtown Parking Ass’n, (alteration in Turner).
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
cise of approval authority by subdivision board); Donoghue v. Prynnwood Corp., 356 Mass. 703 , 255 N.E.2d 326, 329 (1970) (mandatory injunctive relief should not issue in support of arbitrary enforcement of restriction); , (“Equity regards the substance rather than the form.”); , (“One who seeks equity must do equity.”).
Vonk v. Dunn 775 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1989
Vonk v. Dunn 775 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1989
On appeal, the Dunns argued the foreclosure was oppressive and unconscionable, relying on Arizona Coffee Shops
Vonk v. Dunn 765 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Vonk v. Dunn 765 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The Dunns argue that the foreclosure was oppressive and unconscionable, citing Arizona Coffee Shops
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
An action to accelerate and foreclose a mortgage being an equitable proceeding, Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass’n, , it is not enough to allege merely that the acceleration clause has been violated.
FIRST FED. S. & L. ASS'N OF PHOENIX v. Ram 659 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
FIRST FED. S. & L. ASS'N OF PHOENIX v. Ram 659 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Ass'n, , the Arizona Supreme Court refused to uphold a summary judgment in favor of a mortgagee whose conduct in bringing a foreclosure action may have been unconscionable.
Angle v. Marco Builders, Inc. 626 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1981
Angle v. Marco Builders, Inc. 626 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1981
After construing the facts from the record in a light most favorable to the Angles, the party opposing the ruling granting the motion for summary judgment, Arizona Coffee Shops, , we find there are disputed facts which must be resolved.
Flieger v. Ash 624 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Flieger v. Ash 624 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Frei v. Hamilton 601 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Frei v. Hamilton 601 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Arizona Coffee Shops, , Baltimore Life Insurance Co. v. Harn, 15 Ariz.App.
Sackey v. Cochise County Merit Commission 596 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Sackey v. Cochise County Merit Commission 596 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Association, Inc.
Ciavarelli v. Zimmerman 593 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Ciavarelli v. Zimmerman 593 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
In Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass’n, , the court held that the defendant’s allegation of unconscionable conduct and the affidavit in support thereof were sufficient to create an issue for the trier of fact that precluded the entry of summary judgment.
Nutter v. Occidental Petroleum Land & Development Corp. 573 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nutter v. Occidental Petroleum Land & Development Corp. 573 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
A suit to foreclose a mortgage is an equitable action, Arizona Coffee Shops, , and in matters of setoff equity usually follows the law.
Browne v. Nowlin 570 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1977
Browne v. Nowlin 570 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1977
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ass’n, , Sarti v. Udall, supra.
Baltimore Life Insurance Company v. Harn 486 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Baltimore Life Insurance Company v. Harn 486 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
An action to accelerate and foreclose a mortgage being an equitable proceeding, Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass’n, , it is not enough to allege merely that the acceleration clause has been violated.
Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
& Loan Ass’n, , ; Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass’n, , ; , ; Nyberg v. Salt River Project Agr.
Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company 457 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Evans v. Scottsdale Plumbing Company 457 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
and Arizona Coffee Shops, , in support of their position.
Owen v. Mecham 454 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Owen v. Mecham 454 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Ass’n, , the following findings of fact, pertinent to this question, were entered: “That plaintiff had accepted previous payments due for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, and after the due date, and gave no notice to defendant that he would not accept subsequent late payments after July 15, 1965, that plai
Hatton v. Greenberg 451 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hatton v. Greenberg 451 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
First, we believe that mortgage foreclosure actions being actions in equity, Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Park, Ass’n, , Ticktin v. Western Savings and Loan Ass’n, , equity will not suffer, in this case, the innocent debtor to go from the court empty handed.
Ticktin v. Western Savings and Loan Ass'n 442 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ticktin v. Western Savings and Loan Ass'n 442 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Mortensen v. Berzell Investment Company 429 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1967
Mortensen v. Berzell Investment Company 429 P.2d 945 Ariz. 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.
Madsen v. Fisk 423 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Madsen v. Fisk 423 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Park Ass’n, , ” If it be that no evidence can be received in relation to the meaning of the exchange commission agreement, then the suit must be resolved in favor of Madsen for the reason that the agreement for sale was a sales agreement and not an exchange agreement.