Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Andrews v. Blake, 69 P.3d 7.

423 citing documents.

Alexander v. Bill Lukie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶55 “[T]here is a strong presumption that a letter properly addressed, stamped and deposited in the United States mail will reach the addressee.” -68, ¶ 22 n.3, n.3 (2003).
Alexander v. Bill Lukie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing “the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” ¶ 12
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Bar v. Lang 323 P.3d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Bar v. Lang 323 P.3d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 12, (interpretation of contract is question of law reviewed de novo).
Shamrock v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shamrock v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
National v. Bodine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
National v. Bodine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Doyle v. Bashas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Doyle v. Bashas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 ¶8 Viewing this evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Doyle, ¶ 12, we agree with Doyle that a genuine dispute of material 3In responding to Bashas’ summary judgment motion, Doyle submitted a letter from Bill’s treating doctor that discussed Bill’s pre- existing liver disease.
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC 317 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC 317 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and “view[] the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” ¶¶ 11,12
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 311 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 311 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Aaron Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering Inc 280 P.3d 599 Ariz. 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best v. Miranda 274 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best v. Miranda 274 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 7 We construe option agreements narrowly, and “an option must be exercised strictly according to the terms and conditions in the option.” ¶ 34 , , (“[T]he law is crystal clear that an option agreement must be strictly construed, in that it must be exercised in exact accord with its terms and conditions.”).
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz 266 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2011
Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz 266 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2011
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Background ¶2 Although we view the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted, here the parties filed a joint stipulated statement of facts in connection with their separate motions for summary judgment.
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” ¶ 12
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Chavez v. Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, Inc. 258 P.3d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Chavez v. Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, Inc. 258 P.3d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011