Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., 907 P.2d 51.

59 citing documents.

Fadlon v. Cleverly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Fadlon v. Cleverly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Mason v. La Glorieta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mason v. La Glorieta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Servs., Inc., –93 (1995).
Beus Gilbert v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Beus Gilbert v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Servs., Inc., 90 (1995) (providing that contract provisions “are unenforceable if they are oppressive or unconscionable” and noting that “claims under the doctrines of fraud, misrepresentation, duress, and mistake” may be pursued); Goodman, 101 Ariz. at 474 (recognizing “illegal” contracts as unenforceable); Merrill, 15 Ariz.
Agricann v. Natural Remedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Agricann v. Natural Remedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Duncan v. Public Storage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Duncan v. Public Storage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Servs., Inc., see also Hilro, 146 Ariz. at 253.
Aerial Funding v. Van Sickle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aerial Funding v. Van Sickle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Servs., Inc., (quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., ).
Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Servs., Inc., Casarotto, 517 U.S. at 686–87.
Glendale v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Glendale v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Servs., Inc. , , 89, , 58 (1995) ) ).
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
Dobson Bay Club II DD, LLC v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC 393 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2017
Servs., Inc., , (“[E]ven if the contract provisions are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the party they are unenforceable if they are op *116 pressive or unconscionable(internal quotations and alterations omitted)); Goodman v. Newzona Inv.
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
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
Tbf Financial v. Devens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tbf Financial v. Devens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Inc., -89 , -58 (1995) (quoting Dan B. Dobbs, 2 Law of Remedies § 10.7, at 706 (2d ed.1993)).
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
Servs., Inc., (first and second alterations in Ruesga).
Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC 307 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC 307 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sews., Inc., -89 , -58 (1995).
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Srvs., Inc., -86 , -55 (1995) (opponent to summary judgment need not file affidavits but can reference other facts on file to comply with rule); Mohave Elec.
Banner Health v. Medical Savings Insurance 163 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Servs., Inc., quoting Angus Med.
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
Servs., Inc., -88 , -57 (1995) (“This court previously has noted the rule that ‘reasonable expectations’ and unconscionability are two distinct grounds for invalidating or limiting the enforcement of a contract____”).
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
Servs., Inc., , (the determination of unconscionability is to be made by a court as a matter of law after the requisite factual findings have been made); Samaritan Health Sys.
Lombardo v. Albu 14 P.3d 288 Ariz. 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 14 P.3d 288 Ariz. 2000
Servs., Inc., , are as follows.
Estate of Nelson v. Rice 12 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Estate of Nelson v. Rice 12 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000