Arizona Supreme Court, 1963

Barrett v. Hiney

Arizona Supreme Court · Decided May 29, 1963 · Bernstein, Udall, Lockwood

382 P.2d 240; 94 Ariz. 133; 1963 Ariz. LEXIS 288 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Marriage of Bugh v. Bugh (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980)
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. J-3206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)
Turf Irr. & W. Sup. v. Mt. States Tel. & Tel. Co. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975)
Irrigation & Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975)
Stevenson v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles (Ariz. 1973)
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Construction Trucking Service (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Dolph v. Cortez (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
City of Tucson v. Echo Ridge Cooperative Corp. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)
United Bonding Insurance v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)
Hoffman v. Hoffman (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)
Tiller v. Tiller (Ariz. 1965)
Mayberry v. Stambaugh (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

BERNSTEIN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was plaintiff in a suit to collect a real estate commission. The trial court held that on most of the issues the evidence supported the plaintiff’s position but that judgment should be entered for the defendant on the ground that there was a variance in the terms of payment and that these terms did not meet the listing contract. Neither waiver nor estoppel were applicable to the facts in the case.

Appellant has made numerous assignments of error challenging the judgment of the trial court. Appellee has not favored us with a brief within the time prescribed by *134 the rules, and this case has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a) 2, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S., pursuant to motion of appellant. As there are debatable issues this Court will assume the failure to file an answering brief is confession of reversible error on the part of appellee. Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215, 370 P.2d 952; Tom v. Baca, 93, Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912.

Judgment reversed.

UDALL, C. J., and LOCKWOOD, J., ■concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.