Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Herman v. Tucson Title Insurance, 420 P.2d 286.

32 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co., , (“[Promissory estoppel as a substitute for consideration is not binding on the state.”).
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Selective Resources v. Superior Court 700 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Selective Resources v. Superior Court 700 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz.App.
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
Co., , to the effect that a party awarded damages who accepted a remittitur in accordance with a trial court order was estopped to attack the remittitur on cross-appeal.
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
see also, Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branamen Contractor, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 515 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1973
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 515 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1973
Olson v. State 467 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Olson v. State 467 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
we said: “While it is true that the Highway Department has the right and power to abandon or change any part of the state highway system, , 281 P. 207 (1929) the state must respond in damages if it acquires property in consideration of an agreement to construct an inte
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband 426 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband 426 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Distinguished State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Herman v. Tucson Title Insurance Company, Ariz., a Supreme Court decision, in this area of law released since the drafting of this opinion.