Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trollope v. Koerner, 470 P.2d 91.

75 citing documents.

Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Moreover, our supreme court has previously recognized that specific performance “is sometimes required to prevent [the Statute of Frauds] from becoming ‘an instrument by which fraud is perpetrated.’” Owens, 218 Ariz. at 225–26, ¶ 14 ().
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[P]romissory estoppel rests upon a promise to do something in the future.”
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Gardens v. Town of Quartzsite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The distinction between equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel has been explained as: “[T]o work an equitable estoppel or ‘estoppel in pais,’ the representation in question must be of some present or past fact, while promissory estoppel rests upon a promise to do something in the future.”
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶12 However, “one cannot claim full performance of a contract, such as a lease, which would be, if performed, concededly executory on both sides.” See Arnold and Assocs., Inc. v. MISYS Healthcare Sys., 275 F.Supp.
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“While Arizona recognizes a cause of action for ‘promissory fraud’ — the making of a promise without intent to perform — a breach of contract is not fraud.”
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
The Arizona Supreme Court has squarely held that “the equitable doctrine of part performance is inapplicable in a suit where only money damages are sought.” , ( , ).
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 182 P.3d 664 Ariz. 2008
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 182 P.3d 664 Ariz. 2008
The cases reason that because the statute is intended to prevent fraud, specific 7 performance of an oral contract is sometimes required to prevent the statute from becoming “an instrument by which fraud is perpetrated.”
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona, Inc. 793 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona, Inc. 793 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
MH Investment Co. v. Transamerica Title Insurance 785 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
MH Investment Co. v. Transamerica Title Insurance 785 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
Austin v. City of Scottsdale 684 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1984
We have previously indicated that the bringing of such a motion at that point in trial is a “vestige of past practice, without specific authorization in the modern Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Mac Enterprises, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 645 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Mac Enterprises, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 645 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
our Supreme Court, after describing equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel, noted that “both forms require a justifiable right to rely [on representations] on the part of the representee or promisee.” Here the record fails to establish a promise by Webb to Mac and consequently there e
Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane 641 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane 641 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Daley v. Earven 639 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Daley v. Earven 639 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Johnson v. Gilbert 621 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Johnson v. Gilbert 621 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
William Henry Brophy College v. Tovar 619 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
William Henry Brophy College v. Tovar 619 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
122 , ; , Custis v. Valley National Bank, supra.
John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. v. Reliance Truck Co. 614 P.2d 327 Ariz. 1980
John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. v. Reliance Truck Co. 614 P.2d 327 Ariz. 1980
Restatement of Contracts, § 5.
Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 613 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 613 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
a landlord made significant improvements to suit the potential lessee in anticipation of a lease.
Ruck Corp. v. Woudenberg 611 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Ruck Corp. v. Woudenberg 611 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Desruisseau v. Cameron 611 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Desruisseau v. Cameron 611 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
: “It is worth bearing in mind that charging fraud is a serious matter, and it should never be alleged routinely, as a makeweight or as a hoped-for panacea for an otherwise imperfectly perceived remedy.” Judgment affirmed.
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Scarborough v. Central L. & P. Co.
Fremming Construction Co. v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n 566 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Fremming Construction Co. v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n 566 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977