DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Feld v. Gerst, 75 P.3d 1075.

14 citing documents.

  • Wassenaar v. Wassenaar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (language in a contract is ambiguous only if it can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning).
  • Dunn v. Fastmed Urgent Care PC 424 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Reynolds Tobacco Co. , , 120, ¶ 13, , 1078 (App. 2003) (noting that a preamble that expresses reasons for an agreement is properly considered in construing the parties' intent); see also Smith v. Neely , , 294, (noting that the intent of the parties is "[t]he heart of the matter" in determining
  • Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., , 122 ¶¶ 23-24, , 1080 (App. 2003) (stating that words used in a contract must be read in context); see also In re MM.
  • Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ¶ 5, Burke v. Arizona State Ret.
  • Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ¶¶ 21-24, -80 (App. 2003) (same meaning rule does not override other canons of construction).
  • Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., 206 Ariz. 117, ¶ 12, (we construe contract in its entirety).
  • Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ¶ 12
  • James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., (in interpreting contract, “we read words ‘in the context in which they are used, and [considering] the purposes sought .
  • United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ¶ 12
  • In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ¶ 12
  • Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 111 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., , 120 ¶¶ 12-13, (words of contract are given their plain meaning).
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
    ving highly unusual sex acts, but also to crimes involving heterosexual contact between adults, that involves conduct that is not abnormal or remarkable except for the fact that one of the parties did not consent to the conduct.’” ( ¶ 17, depublished, P.3d 1075 (2003))).
  • Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    Reynolds Tobacco Co., ___ Ariz. ___, Citibank (Ariz.) v. Bhandhusavee, P.2d 356 (App. 1996).