Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murphey v. Brown, 100 P. 801.

46 citing documents.

Pnc Bank v. Hon coury/jennings 544 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Pnc Bank v. Hon coury/jennings 544 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
uch that a landlord’s right to “seize” a tenant’s “personal property” does not arise until the tenant “neglects or refuses to pay rent when due.” Section 33-362, by contrast, includes no temporal limitation, meaning a landlord’s lien immediately “attach[es] when [property is] placed upon the [leased] premises,” and it remains in place “until all rent for the term has been paid.” (“The general rule is that a landlord’s lien attaches at the commencement of the term or when the property is first br
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–78, 100 P. 801, 805 (1909).
State ex rel. Childers v. 2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle Corp. 731 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State ex rel. Childers v. 2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle Corp. 731 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Corella v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 698 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Corella v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 698 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp. 546 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp. 546 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
The lien is for rent due or to become due, , 100 P. 801 (1909).
State v. Kaiser 508 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1973
State v. Kaiser 508 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1973
100 P. 801 (1909); Beneficial Fire & Cas.
Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. Friermood 507 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1973
Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. Friermood 507 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1973
Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. Friermood 492 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. Friermood 492 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Kipnis v. County of Maricopa 468 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1970
Kipnis v. County of Maricopa 468 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1970
Heller v. Levine 437 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Heller v. Levine 437 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
100 P. 801 (1909).” Keck v. Brookfield, 2 Ariz.App.
Glass v. Mackin 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of McConnell 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of McConnell 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
516 ; , 133 P. 99 ; , 100 P. 801 .
Glass v. Mackin 421 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1966
516 ; , 133 P. 99 ; , 100 P. 801 .
Keck v. Brookfield 409 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Keck v. Brookfield 409 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
100 P. 801 (1909); A.R.S.
Gentry v. Andrews 288 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1955
Gentry v. Andrews 288 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1955
100 P. 801 , the rent provided to be paid in said assignment contract is recoverable in this jurisdiction in a single cause of action.
Peterson v. Sundt 195 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1948
Peterson v. Sundt 195 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1948
See also Caminetti v. Manierre, 23 Cal.2d 94 , ; Lawless v. Calaway, 24 Cal.2d 81 , ; , 100 P. 801 .
Dewar v. Hagans 146 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1944
Dewar v. Hagans 146 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1944
Webb v. Crane Co. 80 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1938
Webb v. Crane Co. 80 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1938
Appellee did not appeal and for this reason appellant contends that its cross assignment is not before us. This court has on several occasions considered cross assignments in the absence of an appeal by appellee ( Pac.
Albert Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew 274 P. 1047 Ariz. 1929
Albert Steinfeld & Co. v. Tew 274 P. 1047 Ariz. 1929
If an appellee is dissatisfied with any order or ruling, the practice has been for him to indicate it by cross-assignments, , 100 Pac.
Western States Securities Co. v. Mosher 237 P. 192 Ariz. 1925
Western States Securities Co. v. Mosher 237 P. 192 Ariz. 1925
Business could not be safely carried on unless goods *426 sold and delivered in the usual course of business became discharged of the lien.” , 100 Pac.
Scottsdale Ginning Co. v. Longan 209 P. 876 Ariz. 1922
Scottsdale Ginning Co. v. Longan 209 P. 876 Ariz. 1922
Kjerschow v. Daggs 207 P. 1089 Ariz. 1922
Kjerschow v. Daggs 207 P. 1089 Ariz. 1922
Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson 146 P. 203 Ariz. 1914
Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson 146 P. 203 Ariz. 1914
*318 “The federal bankruptcy law does not operate to take jurisdiction from courts otherwise authorized to determine the existence of liens on the property of the bankrupt.” , 100 Pac.
Friedman v. Murphey 124 P. 654 Ariz. 1912
Friedman v. Murphey 124 P. 654 Ariz. 1912