Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite C & T Land & Development Company v. Bushnell, 470 P.2d 102.

28 citing documents.

Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
4 CHALLENGE v. WHOLESALE, et al. Decision of the Court (“[I]t is axiomatic that any agreement must be construed as a whole, and each part must be read in light of all the other parts.” (citation omitted)).
Self v. Higher Logic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Self v. Higher Logic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(citing Goodman v. Newzona Inv.
Technology Construction, Inc. v. City of Kingman 278 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Technology Construction, Inc. v. City of Kingman 278 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Autonumerics, Inc. v. Bayer Industries, Inc. 696 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Autonumerics, Inc. v. Bayer Industries, Inc. 696 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
C & T , Brisco v. Meritplan Ins.
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
Abrams v. Horizon Corp. 669 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Abrams v. Horizon Corp. 669 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hadley v. Southwest Properties, Inc. 570 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1977
Hadley v. Southwest Properties, Inc. 570 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1977
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
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.
Wilson v. Savon Stations, Inc. 486 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wilson v. Savon Stations, Inc. 486 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Maricopa County v. Novasic 473 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Maricopa County v. Novasic 473 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970