Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185.

58 citing documents.

State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We give the Legislature’s declaration “special consideration because express legislative findings are quite rare in Arizona.” New Pueblo Constructors
Lane v. Gavilan Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lane v. Gavilan Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Plaintiff’s status as trespasser, licensee or invitee was contested and properly treated as a question of fact for the jury’s determination.”), disagreed with on other grounds by New Pueblo Constructors, McMurtry, 231 Ariz. at 256, ¶ 36 (whether hotel guest exceeded the scope of her invitation and became a trespasser presented a material question of fact).
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller 429 P.3d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller 429 P.3d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 15 NGU also relies on New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State , , for the proposition that substantial compliance is sufficient absent a showing of prejudice by the County.
Technology Construction, Inc. v. City of Kingman 278 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Technology Construction, Inc. v. City of Kingman 278 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In New Pueblo Constructors, , 195 (1985) the calculation of damages based upon the bid cost as compared to the actual installed cost after deducting costs related to the damages, is a proper basis to determine damages.
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
495, 503 , disagreed with on other grounds by New Pueblo Constructors, , is also misplaced because there we merely held that the assignee of a claim is subject to the defense of contributory negligence of the assignor, not the statute of limitations.
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 144 Ariz. 95, 111, (legislative intent of § 12-341.01 to “mitigat[e] the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or just defense, and discourag[e] frivolous lawsuits”); (“[W]hen .
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
xtension of time to complete its work if the project was delayed because of “unforeseeable causes beyond [REL’s] control.” Although there is little substantive Arizona law on government project construction delay, “state courts naturally look for guidance in public contract law to the federal court of claims and the federal boards of contract appeals.” New Pueblo Constructors
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
aggrieved by governmental action to assert their rights.” New Pueblo Constructors
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
New Pueblo Constructors, P.2d 185 (1985).
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In New Pueblo Constructors, , the supreme court characterized these provisions as “the express legislative findings and purpose of A.R.S.
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equip. v. PROP. & CAS. INS. GUAR. 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*447 -12 , -02 (1985) (attorneys’ fees award against state is proper under AR.S.
Clark Equip. v. PROP. & CAS. INS. GUAR. 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*807 -12 , -02 (1985) (attorneys' fees award against state is proper under A.R.S.
Willamette Crushing Co. v. State 932 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Willamette Crushing Co. v. State 932 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Moreover, it does not take account of the supreme court’s strong intimation in New Pueblo Constructors, , that the predecessor of A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that section 12-348 and other fee award statutes are “very broad exceptions to the American rule barring attorney’s fees.” Estate of Walton, , ( , ).
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The Arizona Supreme Court in New Pueblo Constructors, , noted about the legislature’s statement of intent concerning A.R.S.
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
citing New Pueblo Constructors
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Estate of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 794 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1990
Estate of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 794 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1990
aggrieved by governmental action to assert their rights.” New Pueblo Constructors
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 747 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1987
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 747 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1987
See New Pueblo Constructors, , (court disallowed fees under § 12-348(A)(3) when contractor sued state to obtain damages incurred pursuant to state’s breach of construction contract).
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County 751 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Distinguished Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County 751 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
New Pueblo Constructors, , and Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , relied upon by the Department, are distinguishable.
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
*466 The Board also cited New Pueblo Constr., , which has since been vacated by our supreme court, , and State v. Juengel, 15 Ariz.App.
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs 724 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs 724 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
§ 2412 , as noted in New Pueblo Constructors
Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors 716 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mission Hardwood Co. v. Registrar of Contractors 716 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986