Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n v. Schwertner, 140 P. 495.

38 citing documents.

Jose R. Aroca v. Tang Investment Ariz. 2025
Jose R. Aroca v. Tang Investment Ariz. 2025
Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner (“Provident”), –20 (1914).
Jose R. Aroca and Kirstin Aroca v. Tang Investment Company, LLC ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jose R. Aroca and Kirstin Aroca v. Tang Investment Company, LLC ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, -19 (1914).
Velazquez v. Fmz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Velazquez v. Fmz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Building-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, (“[The bar], under the statute of limitation, affects the remedy and not the right.
Span v. Maricopa 437 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Span v. Maricopa 437 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Bldg.– -19 (1914) (unpaid debt is not extinguished by the expiration of the limitation period, "only the remedy has been lost," preventing recovery when "properly invoked by the debtor").
National Tax v. Rivers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
National Tax v. Rivers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, (“[The statute of limitations defense] prevents a recovery when properly invoked by the debtor.
Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, −19 (1914) (when a debt has not been paid, the debt is not extinguished by the expiration of the limitation period, “only the remedy has been lost,” preventing recovery when “properly invoked by the debtor”); De Anza Land &
Rcbt v. Cit Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rcbt v. Cit Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, (recognizing that the statute of limitations defense “prevents a recovery when properly invoked by the debtor.
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Followed Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶34 Ultimately, however, we are bound by our supreme court’s decision in Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, P. 495 (1914).
Pain Management Clinic, P.C. v. Preese 275 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Pain Management Clinic, P.C. v. Preese 275 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Building-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, -19 , 140 P. 495, 496 (1914).
De Anza Land and Leisure Corp. v. Raineri 669 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
De Anza Land and Leisure Corp. v. Raineri 669 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Building-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner, , 140 P. 495 (1914), wherein the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “Outlawry, [i.e., the bar] under the statute of limitation, affects the remedy and not the right.
Farrell v. West 114 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1941
Farrell v. West 114 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1941
Shumway v. Earley 106 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1940
Shumway v. Earley 106 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1940
Nor can we decline to affirm the judgment quieting plaintiffs’ title until defendants are paid such taxes and redemption money, , 140 Pac.
Maricopa County v. Bloomer 78 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1938
Maricopa County v. Bloomer 78 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1938
Bank of Northern Arizona v. Gibbons 15 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1932
Bank of Northern Arizona v. Gibbons 15 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1932
Security Trust & Savings Bank v. McClure 241 P. 515 Ariz. 1925
Security Trust & Savings Bank v. McClure 241 P. 515 Ariz. 1925
Cosper v. the Valley Bank 237 P. 175 Ariz. 1925
Cosper v. the Valley Bank 237 P. 175 Ariz. 1925
Provident Mutual, etc., v. Schwertner, , 140 Pac.
Schwertner v. Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n 148 P. 910 Ariz. 1915
Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n v. Schwertner 148 P. 911 Ariz. 1915
Schwertner v. Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n 148 P. 910 Ariz. 1915
Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n v. Schwertner 148 P. 911 Ariz. 1915
ROSS, C. J. The questions involved in this ease are identical with the questions' determined by us in civil cause No. 1355, Provident Mutual Building-Loan Association v. Josef Schwertner, as Guardian, decided May 6, 1914 and reported in , 140 Pac.
Gideon v. St. Charles 146 P. 925 Ariz. 1915
Gideon v. St. Charles 146 P. 925 Ariz. 1915