Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Romley
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JACOBSON, Judge.
The main issue on the merits of this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed parol evidence to be introduced to explain a “condemnation” clause contained in a lease between appellant, Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company (Pepsi- Cola) as lessee and appellee, Elias M. Romley (Romley) as lessor.
Although this issue arose out of a condemnation action brought by the State of Arizona, because of the proceedings in the trial court, the condemnor was not an active party litigant in the trial court and does not appear on appeal.
On June 17, 1972, the State of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. LuntArizona Supreme Court · 1957
- Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1970
- Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1968
- Cook v. CookCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Willey v. ChunArizona Supreme Court · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Bilke v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- South Carolina Department of Transportation v. M & T Enterprises of Mt. Pleasant, LLC.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
- Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. MathisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.