Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n, 407 P.2d 930.

37 citing documents.

CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
& Loan Ass’n, 99 Ariz. 217, 224
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
& Loan Ass’n, -23 , (quoting Citizens Nat’l Bank of Orange, Va.
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN RANCH COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Simons 165 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN RANCH COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Simons 165 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. 673 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. 673 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association, -23 , (contract provision stipulating amount of fees to be paid is binding only to the extent that it is reasonable); Guidelines for Compensation of Attorneys Appointed to Represent Indigent Persons in Criminal Appeals in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ¶ 3 (Ariz.Sup.Ct.
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
*407 As was stated in Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & L. Ass’n, the trial court “[d]oes not try issues of fact, but only determines whether the same are genuine and in good faith disputed.
Taylor v. Security National Bank 514 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Taylor v. Security National Bank 514 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
320 , cf. Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & L. Ass’n
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Elson Development Company v. Arizona Savings & Loan Association
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
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & L. Ass’n, , ; Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Park.
Merritt v. Walter Pocock Associates Brokers, Inc. 465 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1970
Merritt v. Walter Pocock Associates Brokers, Inc. 465 P.2d 585 Ariz. 1970
to a writing which purports to be an integration of a contract between them orally agreed, before or contemporaneously with the making of the writing that it should not become binding until a future day or until the happening of a future event, the oral agreement is operative if there is nothing in the writing inconsistent therewith.” In Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Assoc., , we said that on a motion for summary judgment the trial court “* * * does not try issues of fact,
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.
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
In Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings and Loan Ass’n, , we stated that: “A motion for summary judgment is granted erroneously if on an examination of the entire record it is found that any disputed fact issue exists which could, if true, affect the final judgment.” 99 Ariz. at 220 , 407 P.2d at 932 .
Kaplan v. Niewold 448 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Kaplan v. Niewold 448 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 438 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1968
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 438 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1968
In any event, we held, , , that where an action is brought upon a written contract which provides for reasonable attorney’s fees, it is error for the court to fix the amount of such fees without proof of what is a reasonable fee.
Boozer v. Arizona Country Club 434 P.2d 630 Ariz. 1967
Boozer v. Arizona Country Club 434 P.2d 630 Ariz. 1967
This principle is even more applicable in Arizona because of Arizona Constitution, Art. 18, § 5, A.R.S., which states that the defense of contributory negligence or assumption of risk “shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” , , we said that on a motion for summary judgment the trial court “ * * * does not try issues of fact, but only determines whether the same are ' genuine and in good faith disputed.
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 430 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 430 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & L. Ass’n