Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baker v. Gardner, 770 P.2d 766.

81 citing documents.

State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
of Regents, , (citations omitted); , (“Courts construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible.”); Pima County v. Maya Constr.
VALLEY NAT. BANK OF ARIZONA v. Kohlhase 897 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
VALLEY NAT. BANK OF ARIZONA v. Kohlhase 897 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
is nothing more than the difference between the security and the debt.” , 104 n. 7, , 772 n. 7 (1988) (quoting Brown v. Jensen, 41 Cal.2d 193 , cert.
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
As a result, we are able to fulfill our duty to “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible.”
Nydam v. Crawford 887 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nydam v. Crawford 887 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
We hold that the trial court correctly applied the statute
Long v. Corbet 888 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Long v. Corbet 888 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
section 33-814(G) applies to prohibit a deficiency judgment against him, , and Mid Kansas Fed.Sav.
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
PNL Credit L.P. v. Southwest Pacific Investment, Inc. 877 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
PNL Credit L.P. v. Southwest Pacific Investment, Inc. 877 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(anti-deficiency statute intended to protect consumers by precluding artificial deficiencies resulting from forced sales).
First Phoenix Realty Investments v. Superior Court 841 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
First Phoenix Realty Investments v. Superior Court 841 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Code § 580b, which prohibits deficiency judgment after sale of real property subject to purchase money deed of trust); see also, generally, -03 , -71 (1988) (interpreting California anti-deficiency statute § 580b).
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Segel 839 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Segel 839 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Segel, , from suing directly on the notes.
Tanque Verde Anesthesiologists, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan v. Proffer Group, Inc. 836 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Tanque Verde Anesthesiologists, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan v. Proffer Group, Inc. 836 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
§ 33-729(A), which applies to purchase money mortgages and to purchase money deeds of trust that are judicially foreclosed, , and 2) A.R.S.
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 804 P.2d 1310 Ariz. 1991
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 804 P.2d 1310 Ariz. 1991
Cely v. Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. 803 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cely v. Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. 803 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 787 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 787 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Following the briefing of this appeal and prior to oral argument, our supreme *234 court’s , was filed.
State v. Thomason 783 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Thomason 783 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
overruled on other grounds
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989