Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. West, 249 P.2d 830.

28 citing documents.

Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
in which our supreme court discussed the scope of the license bond required for used car dealers.
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
Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc. 773 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc. 773 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
: A person who engages in the used car business, as in any business, must concern himself not alone with selling, but with all the myriad details required to conduct such a business.
Citicorp Homeowners, Inc. v. Western Surety Co. 641 P.2d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Citicorp Homeowners, Inc. v. Western Surety Co. 641 P.2d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Insurance Co. of North America v. General Electric Credit Corp. 579 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Insurance Co. of North America v. General Electric Credit Corp. 579 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
* * * , -33 (1952) (Emphasis supplied).
Western Surety Co. v. Union Investment Co. 567 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Western Surety Co. v. Union Investment Co. 567 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Empire Fire & Marine Insurance v. First National Bank 546 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Empire Fire & Marine Insurance v. First National Bank 546 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman 510 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman 510 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Phoenix Auto Auction v. State Automobile Ins.
National Automobile and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Queck 405 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
National Automobile and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Queck 405 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Since, however, the bond is furnished because of the statutory mandate we shall construe the bond by the terms of the statute.” Commercial Standard Insurance Com *602 at 361 , at 831 (1952).
United Ben. Fire Ins. Co. v. FIRST NAT. BK. OF ARIZ. 405 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
United Ben. Fire Ins. Co. v. FIRST NAT. BK. OF ARIZ. 405 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Phoenix Auto Auction, Inc. v. State Automobile Ins.
Western Surety Co. v. Clauss 401 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Western Surety Co. v. Clauss 401 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
the court dealt specifically with the definition of “unlawful act”.
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
Phoenix Auto Auction, Inc. v. State Automobile Insurance 346 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1959
Phoenix Auto Auction, Inc. v. State Automobile Insurance 346 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1959
Section 28-1305, supra, provides that the bond required “shall inure to the benefit of any person who suffers loss by reason of any unlawful act of the licensee.” The meaning of the term “unlawful act”, as used in this particular statute, , .
Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Lunt 313 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1957
Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Lunt 313 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1957
It is true that where a bond is given under the authority of a statute, the statute constitutes a part of the bond, , ; , ; and this bond was given pursuant to the requirements of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act.