Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tenney v. Luplow, 442 P.2d 107.

40 citing documents.

Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
No. 19 of Maricopa Cnty.
Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Heuschkel v. Bergmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Heuschkel v. Bergmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(applying prescriptive easement principles to adverse possession); Paxson, 50 P.3d at 424 (applying adverse possession law to prescriptive easements); Herzog, 148 Ariz. at 133, 713 P.2d at 334 (applying prescriptive easement principles to adverse
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
§ 12-526(A) (adverse possession requires cultivation, use, and enjoyment of property for ten years); -68, -12 (1968); cf. Geronimo Hotel, (where city unconstitutionally seized strip of land, “there was no public roadway immune from adverse possession”).
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 165 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 165 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“A parol gift of land may be said to be upon the same footing as a parol sale of land.”); , (“Parol gifts of land are within the Statute of Frauds____”); ¶ 35 , (holding oral donation of land within statute of frauds as “[t]he statute of frauds precludes a party from bringing a court action to enforce a
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The Mur-phys and Baker, although intending to create a recorded, formal easement, had instead, Paxson argued, created an easement by par-ol, unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds, but effective to initiate a
Stat-O-Matic Retirement Fund v. Assistance League of Yuma 941 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Stat-O-Matic Retirement Fund v. Assistance League of Yuma 941 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-68 , -12 (1968) (adverse possession may be based on presumption that facts and circumstances indicate claimant repudiates owner’s title); , 84 P. 906, 908 (1906) (to give notice of claim, hostile acts must carry presumption that owner would observe *193 them i
Pima County v. Sabino Investing, Inc. 831 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Pima County v. Sabino Investing, Inc. 831 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Jones v. Burk 795 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Jones v. Burk 795 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Tena v. Yorgulez, 24 Ariz.App.
Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Conwell v. Allen, 21 Ariz.App.
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1986
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1986
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Leon v. Byus 565 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Leon v. Byus 565 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Rorebeck v. Christe, 1 Ariz.App.
Conwell v. Allen 519 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Conwell v. Allen 519 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Bale v. Coffin, 13 Ariz.App.
Cheatham v. Vanderwey 499 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Cheatham v. Vanderwey 499 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Bale v. Coffin, 13 Ariz.App.
Bale v. Coffin 479 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Bale v. Coffin 479 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by