Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 77 P.3d 439.

37 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
See Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., (“Arizona courts apply the Restatement to determine the applicable law in a contract action.”); (“Arizona invokes some principles from the Restatement,” though not all in regard to out-of-state marriages); (applyin
Stein v. Meck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stein v. Meck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); ¶ 49 (App. 2002), aff’d in part, rev’d on other grounds, Brown v. U.S. Fid.
Yslas v. Sms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yslas v. Sms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., aff'd in part, vacated in part
Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
To be sure, in its counterclaim, FSNE acknowledges that “Trap-Zap entered into a valid written contract with FSNE.” See Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., –67, ¶ 8 (2003) (“If a contract includes a specific choice-of-law provision, we must determine whether that choice is ‘valid and effective’ under Restatement § 187.”).
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari 399 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari 399 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc.
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The parties to an agreement have the power to determine contractual terms, particularly where they are represented and have relatively equal bargaining power, see Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., -68, ¶ 12 (2003) (citation omitted), and “[c]ourts should not assume an overly paternalistic attitude toward the parties to a contract by relieving one or another of them of the consequences of what is at worst a bad bargain,” ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (quoting Pac.
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Swanson v. The Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 6 (2003).
Austin v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Austin v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶¶ 13, 15, (characterizing § 23-355’s treble damages provision as “the damages available upon breach of an employment contract”); 15, 1064 (1988) (assessing entitlement to treble damages under § 23-355 on basis of employer’s breac
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Black Creek v. alanco/tsi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 Our courts have long recognized the extensive power of parties “to determine the terms of their contractual engagements.” Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶¶ 12, 15 (2003) (stating that parties can even surrender statutory remedies); Morgan Bank (Delaware) v. Wilson, (stating that “parties may include contractual provisions for resolving controversies in a particular jurisdiction”).
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
See Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 13
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 6
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 12 “If a contract includes a specific choice-of-law provision, we must determine whether that choice is valid and effective under Restatement § 187.” Swanson v. The Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 6 , (internal quotation marks omitted).
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 13 , (discussing waiver of rights under employment statutes).
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-15 , -74 (App.1997), and Swanson v. The Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 14 , to suggest lhat treble damages are left entirely to the judge's discretion.
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See ARCAP 13(a)(6); Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 49 , aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., ¶ 6 , (“Choice-of-law issues are questions of law, which we decide de novo.”).
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Cf. Swanson v. The Image Bank, Inc., (“Generally speaking, .
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., , (with few limitations, parties of relatively equal bargaining power may determine the terms of their contractual arrangements); Irwin v. Pac.