Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Diamond v. Jacquith, 125 P. 712.

27 citing documents.

Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cft v. Le Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
the benefit of the alleged agreement.” Best, 217 Ariz. at 503, ¶ 25, 176 P.3d at 701; Del Rio Land, -07, 411, 89 (1944) (detrimental reliance shown where plaintiffs spent substantial sums in remodeling the business premises in reliance on an oral agreement); 125 P. 712, 714 (1912) (detrimental reliance was established, thereby removing a verbal agreement for sales commissions from the statute of frauds, based on the fact plaintiff moved his family to Arizona and refrained from seeking other empl
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
125 P. 712, 714 (1912), in which the party asserting estoppel had fully performed his side of an employment agreement by moving his family to Arizona and refraining from seeking other employment.
Fotinos v. Baker 793 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Fotinos v. Baker 793 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
125 P. 712 (1912); Del Rio Land
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
Trollope v. Koerner 470 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1970
See, e. g., , 125 P. 712 (1912).
Co-Op Dairy, Inc. v. Dean 435 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1967
Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of MacDonald 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Peterson v. First National Bank 417 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
125 P. 712 , L.R.A.1916D, 880 (1912)
Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 375 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1962
Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 375 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1962
We have indeed recognized that the defense of the Statute of Frauds may be precluded by an estoppel in pais or on equitable estoppel, , 125 P. 712 , L.R.A.1916D 880 (1912)
Waugh v. Lennard 211 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1949
Waugh v. Lennard 211 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1949
37-C.J.S., Statute of Frauds, § 251; , 125 P. 712 , L.R.A.1916D, 880; Condon v. Arizona Housing Corp., supra; (2) The complaint alleges further facts, which if proved, would estop defendant from setting up the defense of the statute of frauds.
Condon v. Arizona Housing Corporation 160 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1945
Condon v. Arizona Housing Corporation 160 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1945
Norton v. Steinfeld 288 P. 3 Ariz. 1930
Norton v. Steinfeld 288 P. 3 Ariz. 1930
This constituted complete performance on the part of the Company and, , L. R. A. 1916D 880, 125 Pac.
Sullivan v. Townsend 243 P. 913 Ariz. 1926
Sullivan v. Townsend 243 P. 913 Ariz. 1926
107 ; , L. R. A. 1916D 880, 125 Pac.
Kibbey v. Kinney 218 P. 984 Ariz. 1923
Kibbey v. Kinney 218 P. 984 Ariz. 1923
L. R. A. 1916D, 880, 125 Pac.
Kilbourn v. Marshall 206 P. 785 Ariz. 1922
Kilbourn v. Marshall 206 P. 785 Ariz. 1922
L. R. A. 1916D, 880, 125 Pac.