Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 132 P.3d 825.

26 citing documents.

Talking Rock v. Inscription Canyon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Talking Rock v. Inscription Canyon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 11 (2006) (citation omitted).
Lapour v. Central State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lapour v. Central State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona courts may consider parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties if “the contract language is ‘reasonably susceptible’ to the interpretation asserted by its proponent.” See Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., § 12 (2006) (quoting Taylor, 175 Ariz. at 154).
Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, e.g., Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 10 (2006) (“A contract is ‘a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration.’” (citation omitted)).
State v. Wollenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wollenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 10 (2006) (“A contract is ‘a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration.’”) (internal citation omitted); Hill-Shafer P’ (explaining that an agreement is not enforceable if its material terms are not certain
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. , , 384, ¶ 11, , 828 (2006).
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Southwest v. Sbbi, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 19 (2006).
Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 15 (2006).
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
related facilities, which does not include an RV Park or an Event Tent.” ¶50 In construing the easements and making its determination, the trial court relied in part on parol evidence—most specifically, the testimony of John Hankinson, Sienna’s principal—“to clarify and explain the CC&Rs and to help determine the intent of the parties.” See Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 12, (“Under Arizona’s parol evidence rule, [w]here .
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 56; Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 15
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 12 (2006) (quoting Taylor v. State Farm Mut.
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 15
Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 15 (2006).
Sage v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sage v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Although granting summary judgment for a non-movant may be a “close question,” it may nevertheless be proper so long as “the original movant has had an adequate opportunity to show that there is a genuine issue and that his [or her] opponent is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., ¶ 25, (citations omitted and alteration in original).