Legal Opinion
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided August 16, 1995No. CV-94-0327-PRPublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARTONE, Justice.
We are asked to decide whether substantial compliance with our contractor licensing statute can satisfy the licensing prerequisite to a civil action under A.R.S. § 32-1153. We hold that it can.
I. BACKGROUND
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. (APM) is in the landscaping business. It became a licensed contractor in January, 1990, and renewed its license in December, 1990. It had recently moved and included its new address with the renewal.
In late 1991, the Registrar of Contractors erroneously sent a renewal notice to APM’s old address. APM’s forwarding order with the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marin CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Murphy v. Campbell Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1971
- Sato v. Van DenburghArizona Supreme Court · 1979
- Northen v. ElledgeArizona Supreme Court · 1951
- Nevada Equities, Inc. v. Willard Pease Drilling Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1968
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Smith v. PinnamaneniCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- DeReggi Construction Co. v. MateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Fowler Brothers, Inc. v. BoundsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.