statute of frauds defense (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

statute of frauds defense in Arizona

7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Kellejian v. Kesickigreen
arizctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Kellejian v. Kesicki, 126 Ariz. 12, 13 (App. 1980) (finding defendant's failure to "plead and prove" the statute of frauds before the trial court precluded raising that issue on appeal).

11
Barassi v. Matisongreen
arizctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Thus, he cannot here re-assert a personal jurisdiction defense, “whether or not on the basis of arguments made in the [Connecticut] action.” Restatement (Second) Judgments § 27 cmt. c; accord Barassi v. Matison, 134 Ariz. 338, 341 (App. 1982) (explaining that issue preclusion 13 COCCHIA v. TESTA, et al.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Waugh v. Lennard green
ariz · 1949
2 sentences

2008Id. at 223-24 , 211 P.2d at 812 .

2008Id. at 223-24 , 211 P.2d at 812 .

12008–2008
Kiely v. St. Germain green
colo · 1983
1 sentence

1992Germain, 670 P.2d 764 (Colo.1983), cited correctly by appellant for the proposition that a balancing test should be applied to the question of a promissory estoppel claim and the Statute of Frauds defense, is inapposite.

11992–1992
Olson v. Neale green
arizctapp · 1977
2 sentences

1984Olson v. Neale, 116 Ariz. 522 , 570 P.2d 209 (App.1977).

1984Olson v. Neale, 116 Ariz. 522 , 570 P.2d 209 (App.1977).

11984–1984
Easton v. Wycoff green
utah · 1956
2 sentences

1980Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 92 Ariz. 202 , 375 P.2d 558 (1962); Easton v. Wycoff, 4 Utah 2d 386 , 295 P.2d 332 (1956).

1980Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 92 Ariz. 202 , 375 P.2d 558 (1962); Easton v. Wycoff, 4 Utah 2d 386 , 295 P.2d 332 (1956).

11980–1980
Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix green
ariz · 1962
2 sentences

1980Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 92 Ariz. 202 , 375 P.2d 558 (1962); Easton v. Wycoff, 4 Utah 2d 386 , 295 P.2d 332 (1956).

1980Custis v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 92 Ariz. 202 , 375 P.2d 558 (1962); Easton v. Wycoff, 4 Utah 2d 386 , 295 P.2d 332 (1956).

11980–1980
Condon v. Arizona Housing Corporation green
ariz · 1945
2 sentences

1977The applicable principles are set forth in Restatement of Contracts, § 197, adopted and approved in Condon v. Arizona Housing Corporation, 63 Ariz. 125 , 160 P.2d 342 (1945), as follows: "Where, acting under an oral contract for the transfer of an interest in land, the purchaser with the assent of the vendor (a) makes valuable improvements on the land, or (b) takes possession thereof or retains a possession thereof existing at the time of the bargain, and also pays a portion or all of the purchase price, the purchaser or the vendor may specifically enforce the contract." It is evident that the

1977The applicable principles are set forth in Restatement of Contracts, § 197, adopted and approved in Condon v. Arizona Housing Corporation, 63 Ariz. 125 , 160 P.2d 342 (1945), as follows: "Where, acting under an oral contract for the transfer of an interest in land, the purchaser with the assent of the vendor (a) makes valuable improvements on the land, or (b) takes possession thereof or retains a possession thereof existing at the time of the bargain, and also pays a portion or all of the purchase price, the purchaser or the vendor may specifically enforce the contract." It is evident that the

11977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-101 (5) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2101 (3) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 80 (1922–2025) TX 69 (1929–2026) CA 39 (1910–2025) OH 19 (1992–2026) IN 18 (1835–2025) IL 16 (1986–2024) MI 15 (1969–2025) MO 15 (1977–2021) AL 15 (1985–2015) MA 13 (1994–2015) FL 12 (1987–2012) PA 12 (1982–2026) CO 11 (1978–2014) WA 11 (1965–2023) GA 10 (1980–2025) UT 10 (1983–2024) NC 10 (1979–2024) WY 9 (1953–2017) IA 9 (1959–2014) CT 9 (1984–2002) ND 8 (1978–2023) MT 8 (1969–2016) AZ 7 (1977–2024) MN 7 (1976–2016) NM 7 (1972–2026) ME 7 (1910–2019) MD 6 (1967–2012) SD 6 (1984–2026) NJ 6 (1960–2026) TN 6 (1988–2021) WI 6 (1881–2024) ID 6 (1990–2025) OR 5 (1972–2010) DC 4 (1980–2014) NE 3 (2006–2021) VT 3 (1979–2024) WV 3 (1925–2021) AR 3 (1988–2025) MS 3 (1979–2005) VA 3 (2000–2013) DE 2 (2018–2021) VI 2 (2001–2017) HI 2 (1995–2002) KS 2 (1924–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check