Miller v. Uhrick

Decided September 25, 1985

Arizona Supreme Court · decided 1985-09-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We granted review in this case to resolve an issue which evaded our review in Sanson v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 633 , 688 P.2d 641 (1984). The issue is presented again in this case: What is the effect of a clause which provides for nonwaiver of time is of the essence provision in a deed of trust when the holder accepts late payments? The resolution of the above issue by Division II of the Court of Appeals in this case is consistent with the views of this court, and we, therefore, approve the decision, Clayton K. Miller III v. Susan Uhrick, 146 Ariz. 413 , 706 P.2d 739 (App.1985).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Dorn v. Robinson

Relies on Sanson v. Gonzales · Miller v. Uhrick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-09-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2017

11 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HOLOHAN, Chief Justice.

¶1We granted review in this case to resolve an issue which evaded our review in Sanson v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 633, 688 P.2d 641 (1984). The issue is presented again in this case: What is the effect of a clause which provides for nonwaiver of time is of the essence provision in a deed of trust when the holder accepts late payments?

¶2The resolution of the above issue by Division II of the Court of Appeals in this case is consistent with the views of this court, and we, therefore, approve the decision, Clayton K. Miller III v. Susan Uhrick, 146 Ariz. 413, 706 P.2d 739 (App.1985).

GORDON, Vice Chief Justice, and HAYS, CAMERON and FELDMAN, JJ., concur.