DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership, 182 P.3d 664.

28 citing documents.

  • White v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • White v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Williams v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Williams v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, –27, ¶¶ 14– 18 (2008).
  • Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶10 The statute of frauds also bars any action “on oral contracts for the conveyance of land.” Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 14 (2008); A.R.S.
  • Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    By its terms, the Statute of Frauds is “absolute.” Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. 4 VALDEZ v. DELGADO Opinion of the Court P’ship, –26, ¶ 14 (2008).
  • Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    for the sale of real property or an interest therein”); Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 24 (2008) (“The statute of frauds enacts a clear legislative prohibition against enforcement of an oral agreement for the conveyance of land.”); Restatement (Third) § 2.7.
  • Roe v. Austin 433 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • Roe v. Austin 433 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P'ship , , ¶ 14
  • Williams v. Stapley-Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Williams v. Stapley-Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    The part performance exception applies only if the acts “cannot be explained in the absence of the contract.” Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 16 (2008); see also William Henry Brophy Coll., 127 Ariz. at 194-95.
  • Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 15-16 (2008) (a written agreement is not required where one party has undertaken acts in reliance on and consistent with the agreement).
  • Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 15-16 (2008).
  • Acarta v. Partridge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Acarta v. Partridge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Acarta was not required to do so; the evidence Chase Bank extended credit on Partridge’s behalf and Partridge’s use of and partial payments on those cards provides “convincing proof that the contract[ual relationship] exists.” ¶ 16 (2008).
  • Wilson v. Pnc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Wilson v. Pnc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 15- 16, (acts of part performance may take alleged contract outside statue of frauds if undertaken in reliance on it and cannot be explained in its absence).
  • Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 15
  • Wagner v. Bank of America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Wagner v. Bank of America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 16
  • In Re Guardianship of Pacheco 199 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • In Re Guardianship of Pacheco 199 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008