Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac, 730 P.2d 235.

40 citing documents.

Lampe v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lampe v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
commerce/cra v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
commerce/cra v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶21 Equitable estoppel may apply when “the conduct of a party absolutely precludes the party from asserting rights which might have otherwise existed against another person who in good faith has relied upon the conduct and as a result of such reliance has changed his position for the worse.”
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Decision of the Court ¶8 Equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense that “applies when the conduct of a party absolutely precludes the party from asserting rights which might have otherwise existed against another person who in good faith has relied upon the conduct and as a result of such reliance has changed his position for the worse.” ¶ 20 n.4, n.4 (App. 2012).
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
However, equitable estoppel not only requires that a person show he or she relied upon another’s conduct but that, as a result of such reliance, the person changed his or her “position for the worse.”
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In determining that ownership had not passed and that O’Con-nells’ insurer was therefore wrong in paying the prospective buyer and not Childress for the vehicle damage, we decide that Cavazos v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc., , is the controlling precedent, , upon which O’Connells rely.
Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless 969 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1998
Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless 969 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Carondelet Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 930 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Carondelet Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 930 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Carlson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 906 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Terry v. Gaslight Square Associates 897 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Terry v. Gaslight Square Associates 897 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
All-Way Leasing, Inc. v. Kelly 895 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
All-Way Leasing, Inc. v. Kelly 895 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(elements of estoppel are conduct that induces another to believe certain facts, inducement resulting in acts in reliance thereon, and a resulting injury).
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co. 847 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co. 847 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marriage of Fenn v. Fenn 847 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marriage of Fenn v. Fenn 847 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
our supreme court defined the elements of estoppel as follows: "(1) conduct by which one induces another to believe in certain material facts; and (2) the inducement results in acts in justifiable reliance thereon; and (3) the resulting acts cause injury.” Id.
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
The elements of an action for equitable estoppel are “1) conduct by which one induces another to believe in certain material facts; and 2) the inducement results in acts in justifiable reliance thereon; and 3) the resulting acts cause injury.”
Lynch v. Lynch 791 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Lynch v. Lynch 791 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ray v. Mangum 788 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1989
Ray v. Mangum 788 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1989
(quoting from Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins.
Morgan v. City of Phoenix 785 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Morgan v. City of Phoenix 785 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Reserve Life Insurance 742 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1987
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Reserve Life Insurance 742 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1987
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM Estoppel § 59.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by