Legal Opinion
Clark v. Tinnin
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided December 11, 1956No. 6154PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LA PRADE, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant Clark from a summary judgment in the court below, in favor of plaintiff-appellee Tinnin, holding that a certain “lease agreement” between plaintiff and defendant, involving a liquor license, was null and void as against public policy. Defendant also appeals from and assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to grant his motion for summary judgment.
The uncontroverted facts appear to be as follows: In January, 1950 Tinnin applied to the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control of the State of Arizona for a series No. 9…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Red Rover Copper Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1941
- National Union Indemnity Co. v. Bruce Bros.Arizona Supreme Court · 1934
- Whipple v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1942
- Hom Moon Jung v. SooArizona Supreme Court · 1946
- Eisenman v. SeitzCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
- Sumner Development Corporation v. ShiversAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. TierneyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Hooper v. DuncanArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- Brand v. ElledgeArizona Supreme Court · 1961
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.