Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate, 793 P.2d 1141.

28 citing documents.

Flanigan v. Arizona registrar/r&c Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Flanigan v. Arizona registrar/r&c Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A vested right is “[o]ne which is absolute, complete, and unconditional to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself not dependent upon a contingency.” Chaffin v. Comm’r of Ariz. Dep’t. of Real Estate, (citation and quotation omitted).
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
.”); Chaffin v. Comm’r of Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate, (defining the phrase “summary manner” within statutes governing the Real Estate Recovery Fund “to mean that the court must proceed on the application without delay or formality and in a short, concise and immediate proceeding”) (citation omitted).
Stebbins v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stebbins v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 32-2188(E), as stated in Chaffin v. Comm’r of Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The Hospital relies on three cases, in which this court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims for attorney fees did not vest until a judgment was entered and an application for an award was filed.
Douglas v. Governing Board of the Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 78 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Douglas v. Governing Board of the Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 78 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Chaffin v. Comm’r of Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate, , (The interpretation of a statute “involves the resolution of legal rather than factual issues,” and this court’s review is de novo.).
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 971 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 971 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Chaffin v. Comm’r of Arizona Dep’t of Real Estate
Hansson v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 985 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hansson v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 985 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
“[A] statutory amendment cannot be retroactively applied to defeat a vested right.” Chaffin v. Comm’r of the Arizona Dep’t of Real Estate, , (citation omitted).
Bustos v. W.M. Grace Development 966 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Bustos v. W.M. Grace Development 966 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Chaffin v. Comm’r of the Arizona Dep't of Real Estate
Fiore v. Collagen Corp. 930 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Fiore v. Collagen Corp. 930 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Chaffin v. Commissioner of the Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate
Cottonwood/Verde Valley Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Cottonwood Professional Plaza I 901 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cottonwood/Verde Valley Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Cottonwood Professional Plaza I 901 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chaffin v. Commissioner of the Arizona Dep’t of Real Estate
Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(statutory interpretation is a question of law); Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Dep’t of Real Estate, , (review of statutory interpretation is de novo.).
State v. C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. 876 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. 876 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Chaffin v. Comm’r of Arizona Dep’t of Real Estate
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by