Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sobel v. Jones, 394 P.2d 415.

29 citing documents.

Tappan v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Tappan v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶12 Tappan, urges us to conclude the discovery rule is inapplicable to her claims and instead determine, based on principles of quantum meruit, that her claims accrued at the termination of her services, i.e. “when she stopped doing the additional work in her capacity as [p]rogram [c]oordinator,” rather than with every pa
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
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 900 P.2d 1210 Ariz. 1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 900 P.2d 1210 Ariz. 1995
(“Statutes relating to licensing requirements for contractors are regulatory measures designed for protection of the public against the unscrupulous and unqualified.”); , (“The statutory purpose [of A.R.S.
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
Reidy v. Blackwell 681 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Reidy v. Blackwell 681 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
cited by appellants is not on point.
Burrows v. Taylor 630 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Burrows v. Taylor 630 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
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
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
Miller v. Superior Court in and for the County of Pima, 8 Ariz.App.
Schlicht v. Curtin 570 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Schlicht v. Curtin 570 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Appellant cites other cases: , , Hunter Contracting Co. v. Sanner Contracting Company, 16 Ariz.App.
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
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc. 519 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1974
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc. 519 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1974
this Court pointed out that the chief characteristic distinguishing an independent contractor from an employee is his right to control the manner of accomplishing the particular job.
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
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
Miller v. Superior Court in and for Pima County, 8 Ariz.App.
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
which contains a fact situation similar to that of the present case, states: “The chief characteristic distinguishing an independent contractor from an employee is his right to control the manner of accomplishing the particular job.
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 405 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965