Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Merrill v. Gordon, 140 P. 496.

28 citing documents.

RABA v. CONNECT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
RABA v. CONNECT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Veach v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Veach v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., ¶ 15 (App. 2007) (“It has long been the rule in Arizona that a valid statute is automatically part of any contract affected by it, even if the statute is not specifically mentioned in the contract.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); (“Freedom of contract and freedom in the use and disposition of one’s own are no less sacred than freedom of speech.”); Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 271 (“The largest category of cases in which we have applied the presumption against statutory retroact
Pointe 16 v. Gtis-Hov Ariz. 2025
Pointe 16 v. Gtis-Hov Ariz. 2025
See, (“Freedom of contract and freedom in the use and disposition of one’s own are no less sacred than freedom of speech.”); 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008) (“Our law generally presumes .
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
(“A man may do as he will with his own, and if he chooses to give or contract it away, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others, the contract will stand.”); Com.
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Moody v. Lloyd’s of London, ().
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
e the indictment alleged all the facts necessary for the trial court to sentence Francis under § 13-3419, the exclusive sentencing provision for his crimes, Francis presumptively was aware of “„the full extent of the potential punishment that he face[d] before trial.‟” Waggoner, 144 Ariz. at 239, 697 P.2d at 322, quoting Rodgers, 134 Ariz. at 306, 655 P.2d at 1358; 140 P. 496, 500 (1914) (“„The administration of justice, the law itself as a practical system .
State v. Soltero 71 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Soltero 71 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
The most important of all these is the assumption that all persons of sound and mature mind are presumed to know the law.” , 140 P. 496, 500 (1914) (citation and internal quotation omitted); , (“It is generally accepted that ignorance, or lack of knowledge, of the law which forbids the conduct with which one is charged is no defense.”).
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
AIR TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. Arizona Bank 416 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1966
AIR TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. Arizona Bank 416 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1966
48 C.J. 734, § 280; , 140 P. 496 .” 42 Ariz. at 313 , 25 P.2d at 554 .
Ali v. Sitts 404 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Ali v. Sitts 404 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
140 P. 496 (1914) denied recovery back of payments which the payor had insisted upon presenting to the payee even after the payee denied that there was any obligation between the two.
Moody v. Lloyd's of London 152 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1944
Moody v. Lloyd's of London 152 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1944
“Payment made voluntary and with the full knowledge of facts precludes payor from any recovery for such voluntary payment, and a judgment declaring such payment ‘wrongful’ and granting recovery is error.” , 140 Pac.
Shumway v. Earley 106 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1940
Shumway v. Earley 106 P.2d 194 Ariz. 1940
Gonzalez & Co., Brokers, Inc. v. Thomas 25 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1933
Gonzalez & Co., Brokers, Inc. v. Thomas 25 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1933
48 C. J. 734, § 280; , 140 Pac.
Barth v. A. & B. Schuster Co. 220 P. 391 Ariz. 1923
Barth v. A. & B. Schuster Co. 220 P. 391 Ariz. 1923
Freedom of contract and freedom in the use and disposition of one’s own are no less sacred than freedom of speech.”, , 140 Pac.