Legal Opinion
Donahoe v. Arpaio
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided June 1, 2012No. Nos. CV10-2756-PHX-NVW, CV10-2758-PHX-NVW, CV11-0116-PHX-NVW, CV11-0473-PHX-NVW, CV11-0902-PHX-NVWPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Stay Discovery Obligations (Doc. 355). The motion was argued and evidence taken on May 11, 2012 (Doc. 396). The Court gave an oral ruling for Wilcox, with this written order to follow. Wilcox’s motion will be granted and judgment entered in accordance with the settlement agreement.
I. THE BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The “enforcement of [a] settlement agreement ] ... [is] governed by general contract principles.” Emmons v. Sup. Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1993
- Schade v. DiethrichArizona Supreme Court · 1988
- Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1975
- Polk v. KoernerArizona Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Phoenix v. MayfieldArizona Supreme Court · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mary Wilcox v. County of MaricopaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014