Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 854 P.2d 1134.

236 citing documents.

Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., , (internal quotation omitted).
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cliff Findlay Automotive, LLC v. Olson 263 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cliff Findlay Automotive, LLC v. Olson 263 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., , ¶ 9, n. 1 , (in negligence action, jury normally determines whether defendant breached duty to exercise reasonable care).
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., , and a deed may be treated as a contractual agreement.
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , (“When interpreting a contract, nevertheless, it is fundamental that a court attempt to ‘ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made if at all possible.’ ”) ( , ).
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , 158 n. 9, , 1144 n. 9 (1993); Allison Steel Mfg.
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., -59 , -45 (1993); -29, ¶¶ 26-34 , -29 (App.2004) (applying Taylor to interpretation of a deed).
Hanson v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. 162 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hanson v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. 162 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Weatherguard Roofing Co., Inc. v. DR WARD CONST., CO., INC. 152 P.3d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Weatherguard Roofing Co., Inc. v. DR WARD CONST., CO., INC. 152 P.3d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , (issue of intent of contracting parties properly submitted to jury when parties offered conflicting interpretations and extrinsic evidence regarding what occurred and inferences to be drawn from the events disputed).
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. 138 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. 138 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Co., (“When interpreting a contract .
Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc. 118 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc. 118 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., , (indicating that we “attempt to enforce a contract according to the parties’ intent”).
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
However, , 5 and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 214(c), cmt.
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Co., , (in inter preting a contract, court must decide whether any evidence other than the contract is admissible).
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 75 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 75 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
And, although Rule 80(d) generally 8 Co., (because contract language was reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations and “extrinsic evidence established controversy over what occurred and what inferences to draw from the events, the matter was properly submitted to the jury” ); Muchesko v. Muchesko, 191 Ar iz.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by