Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co., 421 P.2d 318.

113 citing documents.

Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 224 P.3d 178 Ariz. 2010
In Re: Gila River System Ariz. 2010
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 224 P.3d 178 Ariz. 2010
Co., , (“[E]quity respects and upholds the fundamental right of the individual to complete freedom to contract or decline to do so, as he conceives to be for his best interests, so long as his contract is not illegal or against public policy.” (quoting McCall v. Carlson, 63 Nev.
In Re: Gila River System Ariz. 2010
Co., (“[E]quity respects and upholds the fundamental right of the individual to complete freedom to contract or decline to do so, as he conceives to be for his best interests, so long as his contract is not illegal or agains
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts 177 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts 177 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , Valley Nat’l , (“[C]ourts cannot make contracts for the parties....”).
State v. Taylor 764 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Taylor 764 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
“[A] court must give effect to the contract as it is written, and the terms or provisions of the contract, where clear and unambiguous, are conclusive.” Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc., , ( , ).
Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1984
Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1984
Co., -474 , -322 (1966).
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Isaak v. Massachusetts Indemnity Life Insurance 623 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1981
Freedman v. Continental Service Corp. 622 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Freedman v. Continental Service Corp. 622 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
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:
McDaniel & Associates v. Merodias Construction Co. 585 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
McDaniel & Associates v. Merodias Construction Co. 585 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
35 , , it is our opinion that the provisions are unambiguous.
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Joy Enterprises, , Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co., Inc.
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc. 566 P.2d 1332 Ariz. 1977
Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc. 566 P.2d 1332 Ariz. 1977
Its duty is confined to the construction or interpretation of the one which the parties have made for themselves, [citation] Where the intent of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language, there is no need or room for construction or interpretation and a court may not resort thereto.”
Brooks v. Valley National Bank 548 P.2d 1166 Ariz. 1976
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
Joy Enterprises, Inc. v. Reppel 537 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1975
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
Grossman v. Hatley 522 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Grossman v. Hatley 522 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Co., , ; Lyon v. Big Bend Development Co., 7 Ariz.App.
Ripps v. Mueller 517 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ripps v. Mueller 517 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hiett v. Howard, 17 Ariz.App.
Hale v. Flores 506 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hale v. Flores 506 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co., Inc.
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
AP Brown Co. v. Superior Court, County of Pima 490 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
AP Brown Co. v. Superior Court, County of Pima 490 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Beaugureau v. Beaugureau, 11 Ariz.App.
Duhame v. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. 488 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Duhame v. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. 488 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
E. g., Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
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
Where the intent of the parties, as here, is expressed *375 in clear arid unambiguous language, such language is controlling arid there is no need for construction or interpretation, , ; Williams v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 198 Kan.
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 464 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1970
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 464 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1970
Beaugureau v. Beaugureau 463 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970