Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Western Asbestos Co. v. TGK Const. Co., Inc., 590 P.2d 927.

34 citing documents.

Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
RE MONKS CONST. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
R.E. Monks Construction Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
RE MONKS CONST. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Co., Inc., , Coast to Coast Mfg.
R.E. Monks Construction Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Co., Inc., , Coast to Coast Mfg.
Northland Pioneer College v. Zarco 875 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Northland Pioneer College v. Zarco 875 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc., P.2d 1185 *48 (App.1993), and Norman S. Wright & , vacated
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Norquip Rental Corp. v. Sky Steel Erectors, Inc. 854 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Western Asbestos Co. v. TGK Const. Co., Inc.
Maricopa Turf, Inc. v. Sunmaster, Inc. 842 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Maricopa Turf, Inc. v. Sunmaster, Inc. 842 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design & Construction, Inc. 826 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design & Construction, Inc. 826 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
E.g., Western Asbestos Company v. TGK Construction Co., Inc.
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 746 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 746 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Coast to Coast Manufacturing v. Carnes Construction, Inc. 700 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Coast to Coast Manufacturing v. Carnes Construction, Inc. 700 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In order “to protect those who furnish labor or materials in the construction setting,” the Little Miller Act, like its federal counterpart, is to be “liberally construed.”
Honeywell, Inc. v. Arnold Const. Co., Inc. 654 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Honeywell, Inc. v. Arnold Const. Co., Inc. 654 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Western Asbestos Co. v. TGK Construction Co., Inc.
Arizona Laborers v. New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. 640 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Arizona Laborers v. New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. 640 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Western Asbestos Co. v. T. G. K. Construction Co., Inc.
Greaig v. Park West Construction Co. 637 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greaig v. Park West Construction Co. 637 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
” In arguing that the Notice and Claim of Lien filed by Greaig constituted sufficient compliance with the statute, Greaig relies primarily on the case of Western Asbestos Co. v. T. G. K. Construction Co., Inc.
Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction Inc. 630 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1981
Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Construction Inc. 630 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1981
In Western Asbestos Co. v. T G K Construction Co., , the supplier of a subcontractor sued a general contractor and its surety, seeking payment under our statute, the “Little Miller Act.” We considered the persuasiveness of decisions under the federal statute.
Norman S. Wright & Co. v. Slaysman 604 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1979
Norman S. Wright & Co. v. Slaysman 604 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1979
Norman S. Wright & Co. v. Slaysman 604 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Norman S. Wright & Co. v. Slaysman 604 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
12 (1940); Western Asbestos Co. v. TGK Construction Company, Inc.
Sato v. Van Denburgh 599 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1979
Sato v. Van Denburgh 599 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1979
The facts necessary for a resolution of this appeal and presented in a light most favorable to appellants Sato, , are as follows.