Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 854 P.2d 1134.
- First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
- First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
- 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