Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 900 P.2d 1210.

32 citing documents.

Marketech v. Process Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Marketech v. Process Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Republican National Committee; Republican Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Republican National Committee; Republican Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Corp., (substantial compliance inquiry includes whether failure to comply prejudiced party that statute seeks to protect).
Greenwell v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Greenwell v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
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
Corp., -78, -14 (1995) (stating that substantial compliance may be adequate when it does not defeat the statute’s general policy or purpose); Love v. Double “AA” Constructors, Inc., (finding that § 32-1153 “was not intended to injure licensed contractors”)
Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶16 Relying on Aesthetic Property Maintenance, P.2d 1210 (1995), Kost argues that, even if he did not fully comply with the ROC’s requirements for disassociation, the ROC was obligated to disassociate him from Thinker’s license because he “substantially complied.” In Aesthetic Property Maintenance, our supreme court found that substantial compliance with A.R.
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Corp., -78 , -14 (1995).
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Corp., , (Arizona Supreme Court referred to defendant’s objection to contractor’s lack of license as “raisfing] the defense of nonlicensure”); , (calling licensing defense “the affirmative defense of the licensing statute”); cf
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Corp., (whether rule of strict or substantial compliance with statute applies is question of legislative intent); Wenc v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch.
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Corp., -78 , -14 (1995) (holding that substantial compliance with the contractor licensing requirements could be adequate to satisfy the policy of § 32-1153); cf. Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Prods., Inc., -88, ¶¶ 18-24 , -47 (App.2003) (declining to interpre
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Corp., (acknowledging § 32-1153 designed to protect public and rejecting contractor’s claim that 4 Even in the context of a civil action, the fact that a plaintiff may not have been validly licensed does not provide the defendant an absolute defense.
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Corp., , 78, , 1214 (1995).
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc. 41 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc. 41 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Crowe urged that he had substantially complied with the licensing statute as permitted under Aesthetic Property Maintenance, , and that he should be allowed to recover the contract losses he suffered while licensed and bonded in Arizona.
State v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Chapin 928 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Chapin 928 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 909 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 909 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Of special import is our supreme court’s recent decision in Aesthetic Property Maintenance, , *438 (1995).