Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miller v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima, 446 P.2d 699.

26 citing documents.

Marketech v. Process Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Marketech v. Process Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 32-1151 rendered contracts entered by unlicensed contractors void ab initio because the statute made such contracts illegal); –73 (1951) (same); (same); (same); 6 MARKETECH v. PROCESS SERVICE Opinion of the Court (App. 1986) (noting that generally, unless legislative intent specifi
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, e.g., Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Prods., Inc., ¶ 20 (App. 2003)
Chavira v. Armor Designs of Delaware, Inc. 356 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chavira v. Armor Designs of Delaware, Inc. 356 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In fact, we have stated the statute “should not be given an overbroad construction so as to preclude partial recovery as to a valid portion of the contract.” Miller v. Superior Court In & For Pima Cnty.
Levitan v. State, Registrar of Contractors 33 P.3d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Levitan v. State, Registrar of Contractors 33 P.3d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 11 , illustrates the interplay between the Arizona statutes.
Yank v. Juhrend 729 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Yank v. Juhrend 729 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Yank has also cited eases involving unlicensed contractors, , , Pace v. Hanson, 6 Ariz.App.
Matison v. Barassi 578 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Matison v. Barassi 578 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Owners or their salaried employees repairing or maintaining structures owned by them.” We dealt with the property owners’ exemption set forth in Paragraph 4, supra
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Watson v. Welton 563 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Watson v. Welton 563 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
B & P CPNCRETE, INC. v. Turnbow 561 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
B & P CPNCRETE, INC. v. Turnbow 561 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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
City of Phoenix v. SUPERIOR COURT, CTY. OF MARICOPA 514 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1973
City of Phoenix v. SUPERIOR COURT, CTY. OF MARICOPA 514 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1973
Arnold Construction Company, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents, supra
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc. 511 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc. 511 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Our courts have looked to many different characteristics to define a relationship between two parties as that of “contractor” or “employee.” See Sobel v. Jones, supra; , Herman Chanen Const. Co. v. Northwest Tile and Terrazzo Co., Inc., 6 Ariz.App.
Chickering v. George R. Ogonowski Const. Co., Inc. 501 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Chickering v. George R. Ogonowski Const. Co., Inc. 501 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Herman Chanen Construction Co. v. Northwest Tile and Terrazzo Co. of Montana, 6 Ariz.App.