Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. California-Arizona Construction Co., 21 Ariz. 172.

38 citing documents.

Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 , 509 (1920) overruled on other grounds
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 , 509 (1920) overruled on other grounds
Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 558 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 558 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 (1920).” St.
Hammer v. City of Tucson 547 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Hammer v. City of Tucson 547 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
United States F. & , 186 P. 502 (1920) , ; 63A West Annot.
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Muniz 504 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Muniz 504 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 (1920).
Arizona Gunite Builders, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. 459 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Gunite Builders, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. 459 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1969
Continental cites but one case in its brief, United States Fidelity & , 186 P. 502 , which was to the effect that the value of lumber could not be included, as it did not become part of the structure, nor was it consumed substantially.
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Feighner v. Clarke 408 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
In that class of cases, in the absence of special contract, the general rule is that interest should be computed from the time the debt became due.” at 192, 193 , 186 P. 502 , at 509 (1920).
Schwartz v. Schwerin 336 P.2d 144 Ariz. 1959
Schwartz v. Schwerin 336 P.2d 144 Ariz. 1959
See: United States Fidelity & , 186 P. 502 , followed thereafter without analysis of the basic *250 , 246 P. 543 , , .
Spitalny v. Tanner Const. Co. 254 P.2d 440 Ariz. 1953
Spitalny v. Tanner Const. Co. 254 P.2d 440 Ariz. 1953
rule of allowing interest upon unliquidated demands ‘from the time of the commencement- of the action.’ ” Citing U. S. Fidelity, etc., v. California-Arizona Const. Co., , 186 P. 502 .
A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance 104 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1940
A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance 104 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1940
United States F. & , 186 Pac.
Peterson v. Hudson Insurance 15 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1932
Peterson v. Hudson Insurance 15 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1932
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Pettid 11 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1932
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Pettid 11 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1932
Wood v. Phoenix-Tempe Stone Co. 275 P. 5 Ariz. 1929
Wood v. Phoenix-Tempe Stone Co. 275 P. 5 Ariz. 1929
(2d) 758; United States Fidelity & , 186 Pac.
National Surety Co. v. Arizona Grocery Co. 259 P. 404 Ariz. 1927
National Surety Co. v. Arizona Grocery Co. 259 P. 404 Ariz. 1927
Connor Livestock Co. v. Fisher 255 P. 996 Ariz. 1927
Connor Livestock Co. v. Fisher 255 P. 996 Ariz. 1927
So far as the ninth is concerned, we think it is governed by the case of United States Fidelity & , 186 Pac.
Williams v. Hall 249 P. 755 Ariz. 1926
Williams v. Hall 249 P. 755 Ariz. 1926
County of Greenlee v. Webster 246 P. 543 Ariz. 1926
County of Greenlee v. Webster 246 P. 543 Ariz. 1926
Whatever the rule in other jurisdictions, this court has adopted the rule of allowing interest upon unliquidated demands “from the time of the commencement of the action.” Fidelity, etc., v. California-Arizona Co., , 186 Pac.
Saylor v. Hawes 245 P. 354 Ariz. 1926
Saylor v. Hawes 245 P. 354 Ariz. 1926
Feland v. City of Phoenix 217 P. 65 Ariz. 1923
Feland v. City of Phoenix 217 P. 65 Ariz. 1923
130 , and United States Fidelity & , 186 Pac.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by