Sanson v. Gonzales

688 P.2d 641, 141 Ariz. 633, 1984 Ariz. LEXIS 276
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided September 26, 1984·No. No. 17514-PR·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

FELDMAN, Justice.

We granted the petition for review in the case at bench because, inter alia, of our disagreement with certain conclusions reached by the court of appeals and a conflict between the opinion of the court of appeals (Sanson v. Gonzales, 142 Ariz. 30, 688 P.2d 676 [App.1984]) and that of Division 2 of the same court in the case of First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Ram, 135 Ariz. 178, 659 P.2d 1323 (1982).

We are advised by counsel that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement. Concluding, therefore, that the issues raised in the petition for review and response thereto are moot, we order that the proceedings be, and they hereby are, dismissed and that the opinion of the court of appeals is vacated.

HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and HAYS and CAMERON, JJ„ concur.

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

Sanson v. Gonzales, 688 P.2d 641, 141 Ariz. 633, 1984 Ariz. LEXIS 276 (Ark. 1984).

688 P.2d 641 (Sanson v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phillips v. State
774 P.2d 118 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1989)
Dorn v. Robinson
762 P.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1988)
Miller v. Uhrick
707 P.2d 309 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1985)
Miller v. Uhrick
706 P.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1985)