Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kintner v. Wolfe, 426 P.2d 798.

51 citing documents.

Stith v. Ensign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stith v. Ensign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶17 Stith argues we should not rely on the title of the contract.
Hanson v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. 162 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hanson v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. 162 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(refusing to adopt an interpretation rendering one section a nullity).
Provident National Assurance Co. v. Sbrocca 885 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Provident National Assurance Co. v. Sbrocca 885 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Tatum & Bell Center Associates 821 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Tatum & Bell Center Associates 821 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
212, 214 , vacated on other grounds, , (“[A]ll of the authorities appear ' to concur that the contract of guarantee is a contract separate and distinct from the contract evidencing the principal obligation.”).
Pacific American Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Building Systems, Inc. 730 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pacific American Leasing Corp. v. S.P.E. Building Systems, Inc. 730 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
McClellan Mortgage Co. v. Storey 704 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McClellan Mortgage Co. v. Storey 704 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
Arizona Feeds v. a & R ARGO, INC. 666 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Arizona Feeds v. a & R ARGO, INC. 666 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Smith v. Melson, Inc. 659 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1983
Smith v. Melson, Inc. 659 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1983
Giovanelli v. First Federal Savings and Loan Assoc.
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Newmont Exploration Ltd. v. Siskon Corp. 609 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
108 P. 461 (1910), aff’d 233 U.S. 273 , 34 S.Ct.
Giovanelli v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 587 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Giovanelli v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 587 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Tucker v. Byler 558 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Tucker v. Byler 558 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Slater v. Westland 553 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Slater v. Westland 553 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Grossman v. Hatley, 21 Ariz.App.
Ash v. Egar 541 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Ash v. Egar 541 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
applies: “The cardinal rule of construction to be applied in the interpretation of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties.
Coombs v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company 531 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Coombs v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company 531 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
361 , , , 168 P. 643 (1917); University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc., 19 Ariz.App.
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
While it is well-settled that generally the interpretation of an agreement is a question of law for the court, C & T Land & , ; , it is equally well established that an appellate court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation.
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Generally, the interpretation of a contract is a question of law for the court, , and it must determine the intent of the parties from the four corners of the instrument.
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company 485 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company 485 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
C & T Land & Development Company v. Bushnell 470 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1970
C & T Land & Development Company v. Bushnell 470 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1970
TUCSON FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N v. Sundell 464 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
TUCSON FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N v. Sundell 464 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
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
and authorities cited therein.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Gila River Ranch, Inc. 454 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Zimmer v. Salcido 453 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Zimmer v. Salcido 453 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
186 , 13 L.Ed.2d 173 (1964)
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
Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 6 Ariz.App.
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp. 442 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1968