Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 788 P.2d 1189.

31 citing documents.

Tempe v. Lejas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tempe v. Lejas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., –47 (1990) (describing common-law factors for determining materiality of breach, including the extent to which the injured party is deprived of its reasonably expected benefit).
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc.
Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc.
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., –49 (1990).
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc.
Thieme v. Szewczyk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thieme v. Szewczyk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., -47 (1990) (adopting five factors listed in Restatement (Second) Contracts § 241 (1981) for determining whether a breach is material).
Yf Bethany v. 16 Bethany Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Yf Bethany v. 16 Bethany Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See generally Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., -47 (1990) (noting the factors for determining materiality in the context of a lease agreement, including the extent to which the landlord is damaged by the breach).
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc.
Hv & Canal v. Upper Iowa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hv & Canal v. Upper Iowa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶25 The superior court, applying the factors set forth in § 241 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981) as adopted by our supreme court in Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., - 47 (1990), also found that, even if it was incorrect about the existence of a breach by HV, the alleged breach was, as a matter of law, not material.
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Corp. v. Loeh-mann’s, Inc.
Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Consistent with Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., , we hold that an immaterial breach of the lease did not deprive the tenant of the power to renew.
QUEIROZ v. Harvey 204 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
QUEIROZ v. Harvey 204 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc.
Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts 177 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts 177 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Buyer maintains that Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., , and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241 (1981) should control our determination of the issue.
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., , (lease is conveyance of property).
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rreef Management Co. v. Camex Productions, Inc. 945 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Rreef Management Co. v. Camex Productions, Inc. 945 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
We previously disposed of an identical argument in Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann’s, Inc., , vacated on other grounds