Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. SUPERIOR COURT, CTY. OF MARICOPA, 514 P.2d 454.

36 citing documents.

Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(stating that the purpose of § 32-1151 is “ ‘to provide protection for the public that contractors have the requisite skill and ability to perform the required work.’ ” ( , )).
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 909 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 909 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In light of important distinctions among the various types of licenses, -37 , -58 (1973), this interpretation best comports with the purpose of licensing statutes “to provide protection for the public that contractors have the requisite skill and ability to perform the required work.” Id.
Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals 789 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1990
Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals 789 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1990
(statute intended to provide advantage for resident over nonresident contractors); , , (payment of another party’s tax liability does not entitle one to the benefits of the preference statute).
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Productions, Inc. 700 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1985
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Productions, Inc. 700 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1985
See Cottonwood Development v. Foothills Area Coalition of Tucson, Inc. , (where statute is adopted from another state, cases construing statute persuasive); accord
Tanner Companies v. Superior Court 696 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1985
Tanner Companies v. Superior Court 696 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1985
We have upheld challenges to the constitutionality of this statute in Schrey Allison Steel Manufacturing Co.
L.G. Lefler, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 684 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
L.G. Lefler, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 684 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Swengel-Robbins, Inc. v. Gayle Contracting, Inc. 654 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Swengel-Robbins, Inc. v. Gayle Contracting, Inc. 654 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The supreme court reaffirmed its holding in a
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 609 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 609 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
and Pace v. Hanson, 6 Ariz.App.
D. C. Speer Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 603 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
D. C. Speer Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 603 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
514 * and in Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg.
Gene McVety, Inc. v. Don Grady Homes, Inc. 580 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Gene McVety, Inc. v. Don Grady Homes, Inc. 580 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Jackson 571 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1977
State v. Jackson 571 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1977
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Twenty years later, , we again passed upon the constitutionality of § 34-241 (B).
City of Scottsdale v. Deem 556 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
City of Scottsdale v. Deem 556 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co., 20 Ariz.App.
Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Ex Rel. Vivian v. Heritage Shutters, Inc. 534 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Ex Rel. Vivian v. Heritage Shutters, Inc. 534 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Sierra Madre Development, Inc. v. via Entrada Townhouses Ass'n 514 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Sierra Madre Development, Inc. v. via Entrada Townhouses Ass'n 514 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co. 509 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co. 509 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The Arizona Supreme Court has at least implicitly found that a special action proceeding would lie against a political subdivision of the State, and that appropriate relief may be awarded against it where its actions are “arbitrary or capricious.” , , Supreme Court No. 11094, (order affirming decision of trial court entered Jan.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by