Dushoff v. Phoenix Company

532 P.2d 180, 23 Ariz. App. 238, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 520
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedFebruary 13, 1975
Docket1 CA-CIV 2142
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 532 P.2d 180 (Dushoff v. Phoenix Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dushoff v. Phoenix Company, 532 P.2d 180, 23 Ariz. App. 238, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 520 (Ark. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

STEVENS, Judge.

This Court rendered its opinion on 26 November 1974. The opinion is reported in 22 Ariz.App. 445, 528 P.2d 637.

The appellee filed a timely motion for rehearing. The First National Bank of Arizona filed its motion in support of the motion for rehearing and for leave to file an amicus curiae brief which was tendered with the motion. David H. Murdock dba David H. Murdock Development Company filed a like motion and tendered a brief. The appellants filed their response.

It is ordered granting the motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and the briefs are accepted. In this connection the Court desires to point out that the First National Bank of Arizona’s motion and brief do not limit themselves to the record before this Court and urge a number of matters which are outside of the record. This may not be done. City of Tempe v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 109 Ariz. 429, 510 P.2d 745 (1973).

The amicus curiae have miscontrued the opinion. They urge that the opinion places on the landlord “an absolute duty * * * to mitigate damages.” Our holding (22 Ariz.App. at 449, 528 P.2d at 641) only requires that the landlord “make reasonable efforts to rent it (the property) at a fair rental.” This requirement leaves intact the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease, subject to the effect of the landlord’s failure to make reasonable efforts, if such be the fact.

The opinion, as pointed out in the appellants’ response, reverses the summary judgment for reasons other than the factual question as to whether the landlord did use reasonable efforts to mitigate.

It is further ordered reaffirming our opinion and denying the motion for rehearing.

OGG, P. J., and J. DONOFRIO, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Colgan v. Circle K
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2022
Tempe Corporate Office Building v. Arizona Funding Services, Inc.
807 P.2d 1130 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1991)
Lee Development Co. v. Papp
803 P.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1990)
Butler Products Co., Inc. v. Roush
738 P.2d 775 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1987)
Wingate v. Gin
714 P.2d 459 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1985)
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State
696 P.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1984)
Stewart Title & Trust v. Pribbeno
628 P.2d 52 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1981)
Roosen v. Schaffer
621 P.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1980)
Sommer v. Kridel
378 A.2d 767 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
532 P.2d 180, 23 Ariz. App. 238, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dushoff-v-phoenix-company-arizctapp-1975.