Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Northen v. Elledge, 232 P.2d 111.

86 citing documents.

Security Insurance Company of New Haven v. Day 433 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Security Insurance Company of New Haven v. Day 433 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
“ * * * , 17’ P.2d 815, 819, the act was considered as-a regulatory measure designed for the-protection of the public against unscrupulous and unqualified persons purporting-to have the capacity, knowledge and qualifications of a contractor.”
Pace v. Hanson 430 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Pace v. Hanson 430 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
As the law stands, the court cannot countenance such a result.”
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
Jackling v. Snyder 411 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Jackling v. Snyder 411 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
if Snyder is required to be a licensed architect and does not have a license, then he would be precluded from successfully bringing suit upon his contract of employment.
Linsenmeyer v. Jackson 410 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Linsenmeyer v. Jackson 410 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rhodes 397 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1964
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rhodes 397 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1964
Mageary v. Hoyt 369 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1962
Mageary v. Hoyt 369 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1962
In considering a motion for summary judgment the evidence is not weighed but the allegations of all pleadings, depositions and affidavits must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment motion, Peterson v. Valley Nat’l Bank
Sarti v. Udall 369 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1962
Sarti v. Udall 369 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1962
Jackson v. Robertson 368 P.2d 645 Ariz. 1962
Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 368 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1962
Peterson v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 368 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1962
Jackson v. Robertson 368 P.2d 645 Ariz. 1962
prohibited and made unlawful by any statute, is a void contract, tho’ the statute it self doth not mention that it shall be so, but only inflicts a penalty on the offender, because a penalty implies a prohibition, tho’ there are no prohibitory words in the statute.” That this principle has been applied by this, , wherein it was.
Hall v. Bowman 357 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1960
Hall v. Bowman 357 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1960
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cleveland 345 P.2d 210 Ariz. 1959
Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cleveland 345 P.2d 210 Ariz. 1959
We shall next consider plaintiff’s contention that the contract sued upon is enforceable in any event for the reason that Section 61-341, A.C.A.1939, does not contain a penalty clause, , in which we- held that a contract founded upon an act for which a penalty is imposed by statute is void.
Perez v. Tomberlin 340 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1959
Perez v. Tomberlin 340 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1959
See, , ; , ; Whitfield Transportation v. Tucson Warehse & Transfer Co., , .
Foster v. House Beautiful Homes, Inc. 281 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1955
Foster v. House Beautiful Homes, Inc. 281 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1955
An analogous situation is found in our case of Northern v. Elledge, 1951, , , where the statute under consideration, section 67-814, A.C.A.
Shuey v. Shearman 269 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1954
Shuey v. Shearman 269 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1954
Malta v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 259 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1953
Malta v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 259 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1953
Goocher v. Maas 259 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1953
Goocher v. Maas 259 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1953