Buckmaster v. Dent

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “there is no successful party within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 when a contract has been held to be void”
• holding that “there is no successful party GOLDEN PISCES v. FRED WAHL MARINE CONSTRUCTION 8979 within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 when a contract has been held to be void”
• acknowledging “attorney’s fees have been awarded to parties who have successfully proved the non-existence of a contractual relationship”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1990-09-18· cited 106×
• Buckholtz v. Buckholtz
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2019-01-15· cited 46×
• Golden Pisces, Inc. v. Fred Wahl Marine Construction, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-07-24· cited 16×
• Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-06-29· cited 1×
• Golden Pisces, Inc. v. Fred Wahl Marine Construction, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-07-23

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lacer v. Navajo County
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-07-17· cited 49×
• Heywood v. Ziol
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1962-06-06· cited 33×
• University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1973-04-11· cited 31×
• Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1982-10-05· cited 30×
• Dutch Inns of America, Inc. v. Horizon Corporation
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-09-12· cited 23×
• Hamada v. Valley National Bank
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1976-09-23· cited 18×
• Shirley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-12-28· cited 16×
• Mortensen v. Berzell Investment Company
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1967-07-12· cited 11×