Cited by

This, therefore, is a situation where new rules should have been applied “to [an] action[] already pending.” Fink, 224 Ariz. at 613 ¶ 9; (“Every right or remedy created solely by a modified statute disappears or falls with the modified statute unless carried to final judgment before the repeal or modification[.]”(emphasis added)).

Even if a statute does not expressly provide for retroactivity, it may still be applied if merely procedural because litigants have no vested right in a given mode of procedure.” (emphasis added)); (“The rule is that any right conferred by statute may be taken away by statute before it has become vested.” (emphasis added)).

Lastar Co., , (statutory right to proceed against general contractor’s bond did not survive modification of statute because condition that building materials be used not met before effective date of repeal); , (right to form power district did not survive amendment precluding its formation because power district’s “future existence was [still] subject to a favorable vote” on effective date of amendment).

at 138 , 717 P.2d at 442 ( , (plaintiffs had no vested right to formation of second water district despite initial compliance with statutory provisions because formation had not been approved by a final vote thus legislative amendment effectively repealed their right to form such a district)); see also Gattis v. Gr

at 138 , 717 P.2d at 442 ( , ).

(appellant’s right to organize as a power district “was not vested but was subject to the contingency of a favorable vote at the polls”).

‘The rule is that any right conferred by statute may be taken away by statute before it has become vested.’ ” Hall, 149 Ariz. at 138 , 717 P.2d at 442 ( , ).

¶ 11 The City cites , as authority for the general proposition that a city can have vested rights.

The District’s reliance upon , , , is misplaced.

The issue in , was not whether the statute was retroactive, but whether rights had vested prior to the effective date of the amended statute.

The issue in , was not whether the statute was retroactive, but whether rights had vested prior to the effective date of the amended statute.

A similar statement of general law was set forth by Division Two of this court in , : The general rule is that when proceedings are in process under a statute and have not been completed, and a new act passed, modifying the statute under which the proceedings were begun, the new statute becomes integrated into part *96 of the old statute as fully as if written therein from the ve

“The rule is that any right conferred by statute may be taken away by statute before it has become vested.”

The city answers by stating that since the change in the statute was procedural and did not affect substantive rights, it could be applied retroactively, relying on

276 , , Bade v. Drachman, 4 Ariz.App.

276 , In re Dos Cabezas Power District (Johnson v. Arizona Public Service Company), , Bade v. Drachman, 4 Ariz.App.