Taylor v. Stanford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff could not use a FED action to enforce an alleged purchase contract because proving its validity would impermissibly focus on title in a “full-blown trial for specific performance”
• disapproving of litigants who \seek to convert unlawful detainer into a suit for specific performance\
• granting prohibition because “there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy and we can in our discretion issue the writ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Andreola v. Arizona Bank
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1976-05-25· cited 18×
• Phoenix-Sunflower Industries, Inc. v. Hughes
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1970-01-30· cited 17×
• Curtis v. Morris
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1996-01-17· cited 17×
• Casa Grande Trust Company v. Superior Court
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1968-08-21· cited 15×
• Moreno v. Garcia
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1991-07-02· cited 2×
• Phelps v. Superior Court
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1967-02-27· cited 1×
• Nunez v. Valente
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2026-04-24

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1966-03-23· cited 75×
• Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1946-03-25· cited 43×
• Zimmerman v. Superior Court
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1965-05-19· cited 39×
• City of Phoenix v. Rodgers
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1934-06-19· cited 22×
• Merrifield v. Merrifield
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1963-12-30· cited 12×
• State v. . Newbury
  Supreme Court of North Carolina· 1898-03-22· cited 7×
• Bishop v. Perrin
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1894-01-18· cited 6×
• Felber v. Thorpe
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1918-06-15· cited 5×