Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Steinfeld v. Nielsen, 139 P. 879.

74 citing documents.

Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
(quoting Pearsall v. Great N. Ry.
Michael K. Reilly and Sierra Pipeline, LLC v. Philip L. Canale and Terra Canale 565 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Michael K. Reilly and Sierra Pipeline, LLC v. Philip L. Canale and Terra Canale 565 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Freight Sys., Inc., (recognizing that rights “are expectant when they depend upon the continued existence of the present condition of things until the happening of some future event” and “are contingent when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen” ()).
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
212 Ariz. at 537–38, ¶ 13 (quoting Hall, 149 Ariz. at 140)
monroe/pirtle v. Gagan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
monroe/pirtle v. Gagan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
139 P. 879, 896 (1913) (explaining that rights contingent on the happening of a future event are not vested).
City of Apache Junction v. Doolittle 345 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Apache Junction v. Doolittle 345 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
They are contingent when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen....” ( , 139 P. 879, 896 (1913))).
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
32, 138-40 , -36, 442-44 (1986) (distinguishing accrual from vesting of right; concluding defendant had no vested right in substantive law existing at time of event forming basis for action but inchoate right because statute eliminating contributory negligence as bar to tort recovery and adopting comparative negligence became effective before lawsuit filed); , 139 P. 879, 896 (1913) (concluding until holder of accrued right chooses to assert it, right can be prevented from vesting by change in l
Ratliff v. Hardison 199 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Ratliff v. Hardison 199 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Comm'n, , (" '[rights] are contingent, when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen’ "), , 139 P. 879, 895 (1913).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
139 P. 879, 896 (1913) (rights “are contingent when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed until some other event may prevent their vesting”).
Brunet v. Murphy 135 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Brunet v. Murphy 135 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
139 P. 879, 896 (1913) (rights “are contingent, when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed until some other event may prevent their vesting”).
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Freight Sys., Inc., quoting Steinfeld v. 3 Nielsen, 139 P. 879, 896 (1913); P.2d 179 (1999).
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
As early as 1913 our supreme court defined “vested” rights as follows: , 139 P. 879, 896 (1913) (quoting Pearsall v. Great N. Ry.
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
They are contingent, when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed until some other event may prevent their vesting.” , 139 P. 879, 895 (1913), quoting Pearsall v. Great N. Ry.
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
139 P. 879, 896 (1913) (defining contingent rights as those that “are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed until some other event may prevent their vesting”).
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
They are contingent, when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed until some other event may prevent their vesting.’ , 139 P. 879, 895 (1913) (quoting Pearsall v. Great N. Ry., 161 U.S. 646, 673 , 16 S.Ct.
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
( , 139 P. 879, 896 (1913)).
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
( , 139 P. 879, 896 (1914)) (rights contingent when they come into existence based upon occurrence of future event); see also Brown Wholesale Elec.
Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate 793 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate 793 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. H.S. Lastar Co. 730 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. H.S. Lastar Co. 730 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
as a present interest.” , 139 P. 879, 896 (1913).
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
They are contingent when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed until such other event may prevent their vesting.” , 139 P. 879, 896 (1913).
Wilco Aviation v. Garfield 599 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Wilco Aviation v. Garfield 599 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
100 P. 810 (1909); , 139 P. 879 (1913).
Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
Steinfeld v. *248 Nielsen, , 139 P. 879, 896 (1914); , 206 P. 403, 405 (1922); , see also Gibbes v. Zimmerman, et al., 290 U.S. 326 , 54 S.Ct.