Legal Opinion
Three Phoenix Co. v. Pace Industries, Inc.
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided January 12, 1983No. 15775-PRPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLOHAN, Chief Justice.
Respondent, Three Phoenix Company, initiated this litigation seeking injunctive and other relief based upon an alleged breach of covenants not to compete by the petitioner, Pace Industries, Inc. Pace moved to dismiss on the grounds that the respondent was not the proper party to enforce the covenants and that the covenants were unenforceable in any event. The trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment, considered affidavits submitted by respondent, and granted judgment to petitioner Pace.
Three Phoenix appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Amex Distributing Co., Inc. v. MascariCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
- Pace Industries, Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- In Re Digital Music Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Norman R. Johnson and Louise C. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross v. Pacific Lighting Land Company, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.