Greyhound Lines Inc. v. Viad Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• “Arizona does not 9|| adhere to the view ‘that ambiguity must exist before parol evidence is admissible.’’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Ara Inc. v. City of Glendale
  D. Arizona· 2019-01-25· cited 31×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1993-06-10· cited 266×
• Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1995-06-22· cited 154×
• Jones-Hamilton Co., a California Corporation v. Beazer Materials & Services, Inc. Kop-Coat, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Koppers Company, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-08-24· cited 140×
• Walk v. Ring
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2002-04-24· cited 107×
• Gilmore v. Cohen
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1963-10-30· cited 68×
• Anson v. American Motors Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-03-31· cited 63×
• United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2006-02-09· cited 40×
• Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1978-02-07· cited 33×
• Car Wash Enterprises, Inc. v. Kampanos
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1994-06-13· cited 28×
• Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1977-10-07· cited 18×
• Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-03-21· cited 13×