Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gabitzsch v. Cole, 386 P.2d 23.

33 citing documents.

Four 3's v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Four 3's v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
("A trust created by operation of law is not within the Statute of Frauds.").
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In this situation, we must affirm if possible “on any theory within the issues and supported by the evidence.” , Harmon v. Hanson’s Pump & Machine Works, Inc., 4 Ariz.App.
Trimble Cattle Co. v. Henry 592 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Trimble Cattle Co. v. Henry 592 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Crook v. Anderson 565 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Gene Hancock Construction Co. v. Kempton & Snedigar Dairy 510 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Gene Hancock Construction Co. v. Kempton & Snedigar Dairy 510 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Nitrini v. Feinbaum 501 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Nitrini v. Feinbaum 501 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
See also: , ; Butler v. Hyland, 89 Cal.
Wheel of Life Foundation, Inc. v. Ladwig 489 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wheel of Life Foundation, Inc. v. Ladwig 489 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Gabitzsch v. Cole , ; , Valley National Bank v. Hay, 13 Ariz.App.
Biddle v. Girard 462 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Biddle v. Girard 462 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
We have stated: “ * * * [Since findings of fact and conclusions of law were not requested, made or stated, this Court must ‘view the record as though the trial court had found every controverted issue of fact necessary to support the judgment’, , ‘and, if there is reasonable evidence to support such findings, hold that it did so correctly.’
Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc. 445 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1968
Balon v. Hotel & Restaurant Supplies, Inc. 445 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1968
Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc., , , *478
Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Lecky v. Staley 435 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Contractor & Mining Service & Supply, Inc. v. H & M Tractor & Bearing Corp. 417 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Contractor & Mining Service & Supply, Inc. v. H & M Tractor & Bearing Corp. 417 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Regarding the buyer’s allegation that the seller’s warranty that the bearings were to be new was breached, since findings of fact and conclusions of law were not requested, made or stated, this Court must “view the record as though the trial court had found every controverted issue of fact necessary to support the judgment”, , “and, if th^-e is reasonable evidence to support such findings, hold that it did so correctly.”
Beaty v. Jenkins 414 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Beaty v. Jenkins 414 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Davis 413 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Davis 413 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc., , , , 386 P.2d.23 (1963); , Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Moeur v. City of Tempe 412 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Moeur v. City of Tempe 412 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Ensign v. Bohn, 1 Ariz.App.