Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite LeBaron v. Crismon, 412 P.2d 705.

50 citing documents.

A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co., , , ¶ 27, , 1233 (App.2007); , (“It is the duty of the court to adopt a reasonable interpretation of a contract which will harmonize all of its provisions and any conflicting provisions on the face of the instrument must be reconciled if possible to meet the purposes for which the contract was intended.”).
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co. 847 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co. 847 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Fountain Hills Civic Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 733 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fountain Hills Civic Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 733 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 1 Ariz.App.
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Diamond v. Kenner 683 P.2d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Diamond v. Kenner 683 P.2d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co. 678 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co. 678 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Daley v. Earven 639 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Daley v. Earven 639 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
That courts should not be concerned with the undisclosed intent of the parties is made crystal-clear by a long line of decisions of our Supreme Court, including:
Valley National Bank v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Valley National Bank v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In approving the concept contained in Carley, supra, , : “This court has held that the agreement need not be contained in one paper but may be in several so long as they can be identified with reasonable certainty.” 100 Ariz. at 208 , 412 P.2d at 706 (Emphasis added).
Dutch Inns of America, Inc. v. Horizon Corporation 500 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dutch Inns of America, Inc. v. Horizon Corporation 500 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Favour v. Joseff 494 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Favour v. Joseff 494 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini 490 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1971
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini 490 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1971
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
tion, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs * * 3 Holmes, The Path of the Law That courts should not be concerned with the undisclosed intent of the parties is made crystal-clear by a long line of decisions of our Supreme Court, including:
Ramsey v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 460 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Ramsey v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 460 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
it was said: “ * * * An interpretation of the instruments is a question of law to be determined by this court independent of *540 the trial court’s findings.
Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc. 456 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1969
Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc. 456 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1969
in which we said: “This court has held that the agreement need not be contained in one paper but may be in several so long as they can be identified with reasonable certainty * * * An interpretation of the instruments is a question of law to be determined by this court independent of the trial court’s f
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Followed City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc., , T. D. Dennis Builder
Sleizer v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. 452 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sleizer v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. 452 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
suit for specific performance was granted on a contract to convey land.
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Hunter 435 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Hunter 435 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Smith v. Superior Equipment Co. 428 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1967
Smith v. Superior Equipment Co. 428 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1967
The trial court’s determination in this respect is not binding on this court, “since an interpretation of instruments is a question of law to be determined by this court independent of the trial court’s findings.” T. D. Dennis Builder, , ; , .
T. D. Dennis Builder, Inc. v. Goff 418 P.2d 367 Ariz. 1966
T. D. Dennis Builder, Inc. v. Goff 418 P.2d 367 Ariz. 1966