Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd., 840 P.2d 1013.

53 citing documents.

Mayes v. Tom's Camperland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mayes v. Tom's Camperland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
of Phx., Ltd., (“Contracts of adhesion will not be enforced unless they are conscionable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties.”).
Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gullett ex rel. Estate of Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. 390 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Gullett ex rel. Estate of Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. 390 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
of Phx., Ltd., , (examining specific facts of case to find arbitration agreement unenforceable).
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Phx., Ltd., (noting even an adhesion contract is enforceable unless the contract or provision falls outside the reasonable expectations of the adhering party or the contract is unconscionable) (quoting Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., (Cal.
State v. Cifuno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cifuno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Phoenix, Ltd., (allowing the trial court to award the prevailing party attorneys’ fees incurred at the trial court and appellate level).
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
of Phx., Ltd., -51, -16 (1992).
Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 336 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 336 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 18 In Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd., , our supreme court applied “reasonable expectations” to hold that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable.
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Phoenix, Ltd., (internal quotation marks omitted).
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
of Phx., Ltd., (enforceability of agreement to arbitrate determined by contract law principles).
Banner Health v. Medical Savings Insurance 163 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Davis v. Zlatos 123 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Davis v. Zlatos 123 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
see also Broemmer v. Abortion Servs, of Phoenix, Ltd., , (“When the facts are undisputed, this court is not bound by the trial court’s conclusions and may make its own analysis of the facts or legal instruments on which the case turns.”).
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
The Court specifically finds that the arbitration provision is defective because of the lack of conspicuous and express language of a waiver of the fundamental right to a jury trial [citing Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd., , ] and does not constitute a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of same ...; and because of the lack of notice that AAA arbitration can involve substantial fees which they must pay and which the Court specifically holds should be included in an arbitrat
Schoneberger v. Oelze 96 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schoneberger v. Oelze 96 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
of Phoenix, , (enforcability of agreement to arbitrate determined by contract law principles); Jeanes, 16 Ariz.App.
Bennett v. Appaloosa Horse Club 35 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bennett v. Appaloosa Horse Club 35 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
of Phoenix, Ltd., , (quoting Wheeler v. St.
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
Construction Co., , and Broemmer v. Abortion Services, Ltd.
Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe 965 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1998
Arizona Legislative Council v. Howe 965 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1998
Tovrea Land & , -52 (1966).
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 907 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1995
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 907 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1995
of Phoenix, , (quoting Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr.
Anderson v. Country Life Insurance 886 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Anderson v. Country Life Insurance 886 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd., 173 *
Phoenix Baptist Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Aiken 877 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Phoenix Baptist Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Aiken 877 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
ourt has stated that an adhesion contract “is typically a standardized form offered to consumers of goods and services on essentially a ‘take it or leave it’ basis without affording the consumer a realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions that the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or services except by acquiescing in the form contract.” Broemmer v. Abortion Servs., Ltd., , (quoting Wheeler v. St.
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Broemmer v. Abortion Servs., Ltd., , Purvis &amp
Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 877 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 877 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 869 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1994