Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1970–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Washburngreen1 sentence2023Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 554, 556-57, ¶¶ 1, 13 (2006) (“[R]estrictive covenants should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as determined from the language of the document in its entirety and the purpose for which the covenants were created.”) (adopting Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.1(1) (2000)). | 1 | 1 |
Chadwick v. Winngreen1 sentence2022See Chadwick, 101 Ariz. at 535 . 6 S & S HOLDINGS v. AMERICAN GREEN Decision of the Court ¶22 S&S nevertheless argues that because section 12.2 of the Lease provides that no waiver “shall be deemed a waiver . . . of any subsequent Default or Breach by Lessee of the same . . . term, covenant or condition hereof,” it did not waive its right raise default and breach in 2020. | 1 | 1 |
Bolon v. Penningtongreen2 sentences1989While we might ignore a trivial breach, see Bolon v. Pennington, 6 Ariz.App. 308, 309-10 , 432 P.2d 274, 275-76 (1967), if “[the lessee] violates any of the covenants of the lease, and it is provided that such a violation shall cause a forfeiture of his lease, the courts will enforce such a forfeiture.” Karam & Sons Mercantile Co. v. Serrano, 51 Ariz. 397, 407 , 77 P.2d 447, 451 (1938). 1989While we might ignore a trivial breach, see Bolon v. Pennington, 6 Ariz.App. 308, 309-10 , 432 P.2d 274, 275-76 (1967), if “[the lessee] violates any of the covenants of the lease, and it is provided that such a violation shall cause a forfeiture of his lease, the courts will enforce such a forfeiture.” Karam & Sons Mercantile Co. v. Serrano, 51 Ariz. 397, 407 , 77 P.2d 447, 451 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
M. Karam & Sons Mercantile Co. v. Serranogreen2 sentences1989While we might ignore a trivial breach, see Bolon v. Pennington, 6 Ariz.App. 308, 309-10 , 432 P.2d 274, 275-76 (1967), if “[the lessee] violates any of the covenants of the lease, and it is provided that such a violation shall cause a forfeiture of his lease, the courts will enforce such a forfeiture.” Karam & Sons Mercantile Co. v. Serrano, 51 Ariz. 397, 407 , 77 P.2d 447, 451 (1938). 1989While we might ignore a trivial breach, see Bolon v. Pennington, 6 Ariz.App. 308, 309-10 , 432 P.2d 274, 275-76 (1967), if “[the lessee] violates any of the covenants of the lease, and it is provided that such a violation shall cause a forfeiture of his lease, the courts will enforce such a forfeiture.” Karam & Sons Mercantile Co. v. Serrano, 51 Ariz. 397, 407 , 77 P.2d 447, 451 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Starzinger
green
2 sentences2009Id. ¶ 8 The decision in Starzinger reflects the prevailing view that “where a lease provides for its termination at the lessor’s option on condemnation of the property, the lessee has no right to compensation for the taldng if the option is exercised.” 29A C.J.S. 2009Id. 4 ¶8 The decision in Starzinger reflects the prevailing view that “where a lease provides for its termination at the lessor’s option on condemnation of the property, the lessee has no right to compensation for the taking if the option is exercised.” 29A C.J.S. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Devry Brick Company v. Mordka
green
2 sentences1970Appellees, on the other hand, contend that the statutory agency relationship is created merely by the lease requirement that the lessee make improvements upon the leased property. 96 Ariz. at p. 72 , 391 P.2d 925 . 1970Appellees, on the other hand, contend that the statutory agency relationship is created merely by the lease requirement that the lessee make improvements upon the leased property. 96 Ariz. at p. 72 , 391 P.2d 925 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.