IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
|
- Stewart Warren
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 0 Walker and Sons Inc. dba Katrol Construction -v- COMPLAINANT License No: B-.-C of Sygnos Inc. RESPONDENT No. 0A--ROC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION HEARING: July, 0, at :00 a.m. 0 0 APPEARANCES: Complainant Walker and Sons Inc. dba Katrol Construction appeared through Michael W. Thal, Esq., Lang Baker & Klain, PLC; Respondent Sygnos Inc. appeared through Jay M. Mann, Esq., Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors ( the Registrar ) issued License No. B-.-C to Respondent Sygnos Inc. ( Sygnos ).. The Registrar issued License No. B-.-C to Complainant Walker and Sons Inc. doing business as ( dba ) Katrol Construction ( Katrol ).. On or about November, 0, Katrol filed two Complaints with the Registrar against Sygnos alleging that it owed Complainant the following sums: () $0,0. out of a total contract price of $0,.00 for repairs to Building at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Administration Center on 0 East Indian School Road, Phoenix, Arizona 0 ( the VA Center ); and () $,0. out of a total contract price of $0,.0 on a time-and-material basis to tear down and relocate off-site the temporary Operating Room ( OR ) building at the VA Center. The Registrar consolidated the two Complaints and designated them as Case No. 0-. Office of Administrative Hearings 00 West Washington, Suite 0 Phoenix, Arizona 00 (0) -
2 0 0. After Sygnos did not resolve Katrol s Complaints, the Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Sygnos, charging a possible violation of A.R.S. - (A)().. On March, 0, Sygnos attorney, on its behalf, filed a timely written answer, denying any violation of A.R.S. -(A)() and affirmatively alleging, among other things, that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction over Katrol s Complaints for non-payment for work performed on a federally owned project such as the VA Center.. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings ( the OAH ), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.. Before the hearing, Sygnos filed a motion to the OAH to dismiss Katrol s Complaints, arguing that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction over them, Katrol filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and Sygnos filed a reply. The Administrative Law Judge took the motion to dismiss under advisement.. A hearing was held on July, 0. Katrol submitted ten exhibits and presented the testimony of Kathleen Walker, its president and qualifying party. Sygnos submitted five exhibits and presented the testimony of Darin Walters, its senior project manager on the construction projects at the VA Center. HEARING EVIDENCE. Mrs. Walker testified that Katrol has performed seven or eight subcontracts on federal projects for which Sygnos was the general contractor since 00. Mrs. Walker testified that Katrol had a written subcontract for the work at Building, but that the work on the temporary OR, which Mrs. Walker called Phase, was on a timeand-material basis. 0. Sygnos submitted the subcontract for the work at Building. Paragraph of the subcontract provided as follows: 0 A.R.S. -(A)() includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor s license, [f]ailure by a licensee... to pay monies in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars when due for materials or services rendered in connection with the licensee s operations as a contractor when the licensee has the capacity to pay or, if the licensee lacks the capacity to pay, when the licensee has received sufficient monies as payment for the particular construction work project or operation for which the services or materials were rendered or purchased. The legal arguments in the parties filings are addressed below in the Conclusions of Law.
3 0 0 Sygnos, Inc. may withhold amounts otherwise due under this Subcontract, or any other contractual arrangement between the parties, to cover Sygnos, Inc. s reasonable estimate of any cost or liability Sygnos, Inc. has incurred or may incur for which Subcontractor may be responsible. Appropriate adjustments to withholdings shall be made when the exact amounts owed are determined.. Mr. Walters testified that Sygnos always had written subcontracts for all work on its federal projects and denied that Katrol s work on Phase was pursuant to a verbal subcontract for time and materials. Sygnos did not submit a written subcontract for Phase because Mr. Walters testified that he did not know that its attorney did not have a copy of the subcontract.. Katrol submitted two invoices dated September, 0, that Mrs. Walker testified were for its work on Building and Phase in the amounts $0,0. and $,0. respectively.. Mrs. Walker testified that before Katrol submitted these two invoices, Sygnos had always paid Katrol promptly for its work under previous subcontracts.. After Katrol filed the Complaints with the Registrar against Sygnos, Mrs. Walker testified that Katrol s attorney filed a subpoena with the VA Center to obtain documents regarding the VA Center s payments to Sygnos. Mrs. Walker testified that Sygnos pay applications for the VA Center projects showed that it had been paid in full for Katrol s work under the subcontracts. signed the applications, including the following certifications: Mrs. Walker pointed out that Mr. Walters had () All payments due to subcontractors and supplies from previous payments received under the contract have been made, and timely payments will be made from the proceeds of the payment covered by this certification, in accordance with the subcontract agreements and the requirements of Chapter of Title, United States Code. () This request for progress payments does not include any amounts which the prime contractor intends to withhold or 0 Sygnos Exhibit A at. See Katrol s Exhibits and 0. See Katrol s Exhibits and.
4 0 0 retain from a subcontractor or supplier in accordance with the terms and conditions of the subcontract..... Sygnos did not allege at the hearing that it had not been paid for Katrol s work on the construction projects at the VA Center. Sygnos did not present any evidence to dispute the amounts that Katrol s invoices showed were due for its work on the VA Center projects.. Instead, Mr. Walters testified that Sygnos was withholding payment based on backcharges against Katrol for two projects in Texas and Louisiana that Katrol had finished in 0 and 00, respectively. Sygnos submitted its letter to Katrol dated November, 0, explaining that it was claiming $,.00 in backcharges on the Fort Sam Houston project in San Antonio, Texas, including various late charges and $, in attorneys fees and expert witness fees incurred in Sygnos defense of lawsuit filed by Katrol s subcontractor, A/C Technical Services ( A/C Tech ).. Sygnos submitted a signed Settlement Agreement between it and Katrol dated January, 0, in which, among other things, Katrol agreed to provide Sygnos with any and all documentation and witness support needed to prosecute [Signos ] counterclaims against A/C Tech for late fees on the Fort Sam Houston project. Mr. Walters testified that after Katrol s principals breached the settlement agreement by declining to testify against A/C Tech, Sygnos was forced to make an unfavorable settlement with A/C Tech to resolve its claim against Sygnos.. Sygnos pointed to an dated October, 0, from Darin Walters to the federal employees who were overseeing the VA Center projects, informing them that on the advice of counsel, Sygnos was withholding funds from Katrol on the VA Center projects due to exposure on other projects.. Mrs. Walker testified that Sygnos did not incur any late charges on the Fort Sam Houston project and that she had never been shown any documents to substantiate the claimed attorneys fees and expert witness fees incurred in defense of 0 Id. See Sygnos Exhibit B. Sygnos Exhibit E. See Katrol s Exhibit.
5 0 0 A/C Tech s lawsuit. Mrs. Walker testified that after she learned that Sygnos did not incur any late fees, she declined to perjure herself by testifying in support of its prosecution of its counterclaim against A/C Tech. 0. Mr. Walters testified that Sygnos was also withholding funds from Katrol for work that it had performed on a project in Fort Polk, Louisiana in 00, because warranty work that Katrol had performed on three concrete panels failed and was rejected by the Army Corps of Engineers. Sygnos claimed $,00.00 to repair the panels and $, for additional charges for administrative oversight as backcharges against Katrol on the Fort Polk project. 0. Sygnos did not submit any evidence to establish that its claimed backcharges against Katrol on the Fort Sam Houston project in Texas or on the Fort Polk project in Louisiana were based on a reasonable estimate of any cost or liability that Sygnos had incurred or may incur for which Katrol may have been responsible.. On or about February, 0, after Katrol filed the Complaints with the Registrar, Sygnos filed a civil action against Katrol and its principals in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV0-00 for declaratory judgment, commonlaw breach of contract, and common-law misrepresentation. The complaint acknowledged that Katrol had completed its work on the VA Center projects.. On or about April, 0, Katrol and its principals filed an answer and counterclaims against Sygnos for common-law breach of contract and unjust enrichment and violation of Arizona s Prompt Pay Act, A.R.S. -.0 or -, in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV Katrol s attorney indicated that although as of the date of the hearing in this matter, Sygnos had done nothing to prosecute its claims in Case No. CV0-00, Katrol agreed that those claims should be resolved in the civil action, rather than in Katrol s administrative Complaints against Sygnos. 0 0 See Exhibit B at. See Katrol s Exhibit. See Katrol s Exhibit.
6 Administrative notice is taken of Sygnos prior License record as reflected on the Registrar s public website on August, 0. Such prior License record reflects that Sygnos License No. B-.-C was current. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Sygnos moved to dismiss Katrol s Complaints based on the following legal arguments: () Katrol s claims for payment for its work on the VA Center projects, as well as Sygnos claim for offsets for costs that it allegedly incurred on the Fort Sam Houston and Fort Polk projects, were governed by the federal Prompt Pay Act; () The federal Prompt Pay Act allowed a general contractor on a federal project to include in their subcontract, provisions which... permit the [general contractor] to make a determination that part or all of the subcontractor s request for payment may be withheld in accordance with the subcontract agreement..., U.S.C. 0(d)(); and, therefore, () Because federal jurisdiction was exclusive, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine Katrol s claim for a violation of A.R.S. -(A)().. Katrol opposed Sygnos motion to dismiss based on the following arguments: () The federal Prompt Pay Act provided that this section shall not limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to a contractor or a subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by a prime contractor or deficient subcontract performance or nonperformance by a subcontractor, U.S.C. 0(j); () The Arizona Prompt Pay Act does not allow a general contractor to offset payments due under one subcontract against offsets that the subcontractor allegedly owed under other subcontracts, A.R.S. -.0(B) ; A.R.S. -.0 provides in relevant part as follows: A. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, performance by a contractor, subcontractor or material supplier in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract entitles the contractor, subcontractor or material supplier to payment from the party with whom the contractor, subcontractor or material supplier contracts. B. If a subcontractor or material supplier has performed in accordance with the provisions of a construction contract, the contractor shall pay to its subcontractors or material suppliers and each subcontractor shall pay to its subcontractors or material suppliers, within seven days of receipt by the contractor or subcontractor of each progress payment, retention release or final payment, the full amount received for such subcontractor's work and materials supplied based on work completed or
7 0 0 and () The Registrar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a contractor s license should be disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. -(A).. Sygnos decision to resolve its claims against Katrol for offsets in state court undermines its claim that under the federal Prompt Pay Act, federal jurisdiction is exclusive. Sygnos did not point to any conflict between the provisions of the federal Prompt Pay Act and that Arizona Prompt Pay Act that would deprive the Registrar of jurisdiction to resolve this matter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Registrar deny Sygnos motion to dismiss because this matter lies within the Registrar s jurisdiction.. Sygnos did not inform Katrol that it would not be paid for its work on the VA Center projects and did not claim the offsets allegedly due on the Fort Sam Houston and Fort Polk projects until more than two months after Katrol submitted its final invoice for the VA Center projects and a year or two after Katrol completed and was paid for the Fort Sam Houston and Fort Polk projects. Sygnos did not file a lawsuit against Katrol to recover its claimed offsets until more than two months after Katrol filed its Complaints with the Registrar. Signos did not establish that its claimed backcharges against Katrol on the Fort Sam Houston project in Texas and on the Fort Polk project in Louisiana were based on reasonable estimates of any costs or liability that Sygnos had incurred or may incur for which Katrol may have been responsible. Under the circumstances, because Sygnos has not evidenced any desire to resolve in good faith its payment disputes with Katrol, it is recommended that the Registrar decide Katrol s claim for nonpayment in violation of A.R.S. -(A)(), rather than deferring to the pending civil action between the parties in superior court. 0 materials supplied under the subcontract.... Violations of this section shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of a license or other disciplinary action by the registrar pursuant to section -, subsections B, C and D.... See, e.g., Twin Peaks Constr. Inc. of Nevada v. Weatherguard Metal Constr., Inc., Ariz.,, P.d, (App. 00) (citing Op. Ariz. Att y Gen. -). See A.R.S. - to -.
8 0 0. Katrol bears the burden of proof to establish Sygnos statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Sygnos bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.. A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.. Katrol established that Sygnos owed a total of $,. pursuant to its subcontract for Katrol s work on the two VA Center projects. Sygnos did not dispute this amount and did not present evidence to establish a right to any offsets for the Fort Sam Houston or Fort Polk projects. Therefore, Katrol established that Sygnos violated A.R.S. -(A)() by failing to pay Katrol $,.. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, License No. B-.-C of Respondent Sygnos Inc. shall be suspended for thirty (0) days, or until Respondent pays Complainant Walker and Sons Inc. dba Katrol Construction the sum of $,., without prejudice to Sygnos right to liquidate and recover the claimed offsets in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV0-00. It is further recommended that if on or before the effective date of the Order, the Registrar receives from Sygnos written proof that is satisfactory to the Registrar that Respondent has paid $,. to Katrol in certified funds, Sygnos license shall not be suspended but, instead, Katrol s Complaint in Case No. 0- shall be closed. It is further recommended that, in addition to any license suspension that may result from this matter, Sygnos Class B- license be placed on disciplinary probation for a period of sixty (0) days, commencing on the date on which Sygnos files notice of 0 See A.R.S. -0.0(G)(); A.A.C. R--(A) and A.A.C. R--(B)(); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, Ariz.,, P.d (). See A.A.C. R--(B)(). MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE (0). It is not clear that Sygnos claimed offsets would constitute compulsory counterclaims in a civil action under Ariz. R. Civ. P. (a). Even if they would, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in a matter before the Office of Administrative Hearings absent an order by the Administrative Law Judge. See A.A.C. R--0(C).
9 0 compliance or thirty days after the effective date of the final Order, when the disciplinary suspension is lifted, whichever event is earlier. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 0 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, August, 0. Transmitted electronically to: William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors /s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge 0 0
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Shawn Stole Construction Inc., COMPLAINANT, v. Micela Properties Inc., License No: 00 RESPONDENT. No. 0A--ROC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION 1 1 1 1 0 1 HEARING:
More informationDIVISION ONE. ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SHELLEY MAGNESS and COLORADO STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Co-Trustees of The Shelley Magness Trust UDA 6/25/2000, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationDR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE DR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ARIZONA
More informationSAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM SERVICES AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR. THIS IS A SERVICE AGREEMENT (this Agreement ) by and between
SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM SERVICES AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THIS IS A SERVICE AGREEMENT (this Agreement ) by and between (the Contractor ), and San Antonio Water System, municipally-owned utility of the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 1 PRINTER'S NO. 1 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL No. Session of 01 INTRODUCED BY SANTORA, DRISCOLL, SOLOMON, THOMAS, McNEILL, PASHINSKI, DUNBAR, GALLOWAY, W. KELLER,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD., ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0545 a Minnesota corporation, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) DEPARTMENT C ) FIVE STAR DEVELOPMENT RESORT
More informationCHAPTER Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1157
CHAPTER 2010-111 Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1157 An act relating to the Local Government Prompt Payment Act; amending s. 218.72, F.S.; revising definitions; amending s. 218.735, F.S.; revising
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NANCY SAXTON IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS No. 1F-H1100-BFS vs Petitioner, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Respondent. HEARING: April, 01,
More information17B-005. Civil injunction proceedings. A. Petition for civil injunction. If chief disciplinary counsel or, when necessary, chief disciplinary counsel
17B-005. Civil injunction proceedings. A. Petition for civil injunction. If chief disciplinary counsel or, when necessary, chief disciplinary counsel s designee, determines that civil injunction proceedings
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE SALVATORE BALESTRIERI, ) 1 CA-CV 12-0089 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT C ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) (As Modified) DAVID A. BALESTRIERI, ) ) Defendant/Appellee.
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL
PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS. 1, PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL No. Session of 1 INTRODUCED BY SANTORA, DRISCOLL, SOLOMON, THOMAS, McNEILL, PASHINSKI, DUNBAR, GALLOWAY, W. KELLER,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationMASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY FEASIBILITY STUDY AGREEMENT
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY FEASIBILITY STUDY AGREEMENT This Feasibility Study Agreement, dated the XXXX day of XXXXXXXXXX, 20XX (the Agreement ) is between the Massachusetts School Building
More informationORDINANCE NO
1 1 1 0 1 ORDINANCE NO. 0- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING CHAPTER 0½ OF THE BROWARD COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES ("CODE") TO PROHIBIT NON- PAYMENT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007
IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007 COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES: PARTS 44 55 44. Complaints against immigration advisers (1) Any person may make a complaint to the Registrar concerning the
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-11-00015-CV LARRY SANDERS, Appellant V. DAVID WOOD, D/B/A WOOD ENGINEERING COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court
More informationBEFORE THE STATE OF ARIZONA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION
BEFORE THE STATE OF ARIZONA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS In the Matter of: James C. Pierce, D.C. Holder of License No. 8359 For the Practice of Chiropractic In the State of Arizona Case No.: 2015-080
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC. D/B/A AMERICAN HYDRO; AND ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC., A
More information) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RICHARD E. CLARK, ) Attorney No. 9052 ) ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. SB-03-0113-D ) Disciplinary Commission ) No. 00-1066 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O
More informationKBW ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JAYNES CORPORATION, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:13-cv GMN-CWH
Page 1 KBW ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JAYNES CORPORATION, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:13-cv-01771-GMN-CWH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18220
More informationNY GEN MUN S 106-b Page 2 McKinney s General Municipal Law 106-b
NY GEN MUN S 106-b Page 2 McKinney s General Municipal Law 106-b MCKINNEY S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK ANNOTATED GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW CHAPTER 24 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS ARTICLE 5-A PUBLIC CONTRACTS
More information2018COA59. As a matter of first impression, we adopt the reasoning of In re. Gamboa, 400 B.R. 784 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008), abrogated in part by
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued February 23, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00163-CV XIANGXIANG TANG, Appellant V. KLAUS WIEGAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 268th District Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-30496 Document: 00513899296 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 6, 2017 Lyle W.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2002 Session JIM REAGAN, ET AL. v. WILLIAM V. HIGGINS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County No. 96-2-032 Telford E. Forgety,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 22, 2002
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 22, 2002 H&S EXCAVATING v. JERRY W. WALKER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Macon County No. 4527 Clara Byrd, Judge No. M2001-02619-COA-R3-CV
More informationIn re the Marriage of: DIANE MERRILL, Petitioner/Appellee, ROBERT KEITH MERRILL, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationLeGaL Lawyer Referral Network Rules for Network Membership*
LeGaL Lawyer Referral Network Rules for Network Membership* About the LeGaL Lawyer Referral Network The Lawyer Referral Network (the Network ) is a service of The LGBT Bar of Association of Greater New
More informationCHAPTER Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights
CHAPTER 42-28.6 Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights 42-28.6-1 Definitions Payment of legal fees. As used in this chapter, the following words have the meanings indicated: (1) "Law enforcement officer"
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationROGERS CORPORATION - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
ROGERS CORPORATION - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND THOSE SPECIFIED ON THE FACE OF THIS PURCHASE ORDER, SHALL EXCLUSIVELY GOVERN THE PURCHASE OF ALL MATERIALS
More informationGETTING THE ARBITRATION YOU WANT
GETTING THE ARBITRATION YOU WANT PORTER HEDGES CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE GROUP CLIENT BREAKFAST October 7, 2015 Allison J. Snyder Porter Hedges, LLP Houston, Texas asnyder@porterhedges.com David D. Peden Porter
More informationLegal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership
Legal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership Joint Committee on Legal Referral Service New York City Bar Association and The New York County Lawyers Association Amended as of May 1, 2015 Table of
More informationA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE
RESOLUTION NO.,/ - G7? 0/ 6, - 9 v- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONTRACT BETWEEN WEST CONSTRUCTION,
More information[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]
(Filed - April 3, 2008 - Effective August 1, 2008) Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings. Section 1. Jurisdiction. [UNCHANGED] Section 2. Grounds for discipline. [SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED] (c)
More informationBEFORE THE DISTRICT 6 GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE EVIDENTIARY PANEL 6-1 STATE BAR OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OF FULLY PROBATED SUSPENSION. Parties and Appearance
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, Petitioner BEFORE THE DISTRICT 6 GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE EVIDENTIARY PANEL 6-1 STATE BAR OF TEXAS v. XAVIER DURAN, Respondent CASE NO. 201603436 JUDGMENT OF FULLY PROBATED
More informationGeneral Conditions for Non-Construction Contracts Section I (With or without Maintenance Work)
General Conditions for Non-Construction Contracts Section I (With or without Maintenance Work) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing Office of Labor Relations
More informationZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL J. HOELLER, an individual; and AZAR F. GHAFARI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants.
More informationAGREEMENT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES RECITALS. B. The District owns and operates Hospital in, Washington (the "Hospital");
AGREEMENT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES This Agreement for Physician Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of, by and between Public Hospital District No. of County, Washington (the "District"),
More informationAssembly Bill No. 125 Committee on Judiciary
- Assembly Bill No. 125 Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to constructional defects; enacting provisions governing the indemnification of a controlling party by a subcontractor for certain
More informationELIZABETH S. STEWART, Plaintiff/Appellee, STERLING MOBILE SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellant. No.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ELIZABETH
More informationRules for Qualified & Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators
Part I. STANDARDS Rules 15.000 15.200 Part II. DISCIPLINE Rule 15.210. Procedure [No Change] Any complaint alleging violations of the Florida Rules For Qualified And Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/ :03 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2015 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 650487/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationLowndes County Magistrate Court
Lowndes County Magistrate Court Legal Terms Glossary Action: Affiant: Affidavit: Affirmation: Agent for Landlord: Answer: Appeals: Bail: A court proceding when one party prosecutes another for the protection
More informationCase 6:14-cv WSS Document 1 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
Case 6:14-cv-00200-WSS Document 1 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION UNITED FORMING, INC. Plaintiff VS. T.B. PENICK & SONS, INC.; N-CAD,
More informationTennessee Medicaid False Claims Act
Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-181 to 185) i 71-5-181. Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act -- Short title. (a) The title of this section and 71-5-182 -- 71-5-185 is and may be
More informationADR CODE OF PROCEDURE
Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims
More informationLIEN AND BOND LAW USE IT OR LOSE IT
LIEN AND BOND LAW USE IT OR LOSE IT LIENS AND BOND LAW USE IT OR LOSE IT Page PART I: LIENS Liens Chart... 1 Overview... 2 1. How to Enforce a Lien... 2 2. Who Can Have a Lien?... 3 3. Must a Preliminary
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: COUNSEL: DIANE MERRILL, Petitioner/Appellee, v. ROBERT KENNETH MERRILL, Respondent/Appellant. No. CV-15-0028-PR Filed December 15, 2015
More informationGeneral Conditions for Non-Construction Contracts Section I (With or without Maintenance Work)
General Conditions for Non-Construction Contracts Section I (With or without Maintenance Work) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing Office of Labor Relations
More informationIC Chapter 7. Bonding, Escrow, and Retainages
IC 4-13.6-7 Chapter 7. Bonding, Escrow, and Retainages IC 4-13.6-7-0.1 Application of certain amendments to chapter Sec. 0.1. The amendments made to this chapter by P.L.133-2007 apply only to public works
More informationORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046
ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 12-DB-046 7/27/2015 INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary
More informationJOINT RULES of the Florida Legislature
JOINT RULES of the Florida Legislature Pursuant to SCR 2-Org., Adopted November 2012 JOINT RULE ONE LOBBYIST REGISTRATION AND COMPENSATION REPORTING 1.1 Those Required to Register; Exemptions; Committee
More informationJO ELLA RAMSEY, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE JO ELLA RAMSEY, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0355 Appeal from the Superior Court
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. No CV. KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00105-CV KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant v. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CVQ-001710-D3
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ORDER
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ORDER Pursuant to Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 51, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire adopts
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. ROBERT R. COLE, JR., Appellant V. GWENDOLYN PARKER, INC.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 4, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01655-CV ROBERT R. COLE, JR., Appellant V. GWENDOLYN PARKER, INC., Appellee On Appeal from
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Conditionally granted and Opinion Filed April 6, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00791-CV IN RE STEVEN SPIRITAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE SPIRITAS SF
More informationInformation or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories
Information or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories 1. The practitioner may desire to combine Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request
More informationHOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN SAMPLE CONTRACT NO DEVELOPMENT PARTNER
Attachment J CONTRACT BETWEEN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN AND COMPANY NAME INTRODUCTION This contract by and between the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (hereinafter
More informationAGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ART
- DRAFT - This is a standardized draft of a contract to commission an artist to complete a public art project under the Cultural Development Commission s Cultural District Program. This document is applicable
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationOrdinance NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Ordinance 2015-21 An Ordinance of Osceola County Board of County Commissioners, Creating Chapter 25 Wage Recovery ; to Address the Non-Payment and Underpayment of Earned Wages by Creating an Administrative
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued July 12, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00204-CV IN RE MOODY NATIONAL KIRBY HOUSTON S, LLC, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
More informationIC Chapter 5.1. Letters of Credit
IC 26-1-5.1 Chapter 5.1. Letters of Credit IC 26-1-5.1-101 Short title; scope Sec. 101. (a) IC 26-1-5.1 shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code ) Letters of Credit. (b) IC 26-1-5.1 applies
More informationREGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP) 1 REVISED - NOVEMBER 2010
REGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP) 1 REVISED - NOVEMBER 2010 1. Parties to the Dispute The parties to the dispute will be the harmed organization or individual and the gtld registry
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/2016 02:33 PM INDEX NO. 654790/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCaddell Construction Co., Inc.
U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Fraud Section Bond Burning 1409 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2000S Stephen R. Spivack, Esq. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite
More informationRequest for Qualifications for Landscaping Services for the San Joaquin Council of Governments
Request for Qualifications for Landscaping Services for the San Joaquin Council of Governments DATE ISSUED: March 11, 2019 SUBMITTAL DEADLINE: SUBMIT TO: March 29, 2019 at 4:00 pm Rebecca Calija-RFQ Landscaping
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY. Trial Court No. 05CV192H. Appellant Decided: December 5, 2008 * * * * *
[Cite as S.E. Johnson Cos., Inc. v. Chas. F. Mann Painting Co., 2008-Ohio-6395.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY S.E. Johnson Companies, Inc., et al. Appellees Court
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2017 SENATE BILL 601
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. Act 0 of the Regular Session 0 State of Arkansas st General Assembly As Engrossed: S// A Bill Regular Session,
More informationAGREEMENT. between BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. and. for BILLING RELATED TO THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LANDFILL
AGREEMENT between BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA and for BILLING RELATED TO THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LANDFILL This Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into by and between BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision
More informationADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
1 David G. Derickson, State Bar No. 000 John P. Kaites, State Bar No. 01 Michael S. Love, State Bar No. 0 RIDENOUR, HIENTON & LEWIS, P.L.L.C. Chase Tower 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona
More informationAgency # RULES FOR HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Effective July 10, 2003
Agency # 108.00 RULES FOR HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Effective July 10, 2003 State Board of Election Commissioners 501 Woodlane, Suite 122 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-1834
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE TARUN VIG, an unmarried man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NIX PROJECT II PARTNERSHIP, an Arizona general partnership, Defendant/Appellee No. 1 CA-CV 08-0112
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
Case 2:13-cv-00124 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 06/11/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, VS. Plaintiff, CORDILLERA COMMUNICATIONS,
More informationHOPING FOR THE BEST, PREPARING FOR THE WORST
-----STATE BAR LITIGATION SECTION REPORT ~ADVOCATE 7 HOPING FOR THE BEST, PREPARING FOR THE WORST * 8 ~ADVOCATE * SPRING 2017 CONTRACTUAL NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY-TO-CURE PROVISIONS BY JEFF CHAPMAN P ARTIES
More informationPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.,, by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Page 1 of 22 Page 1 of 17 Financial Project Number(s): (item-segment-phase-sequence) Fund: PORT FLAIR Category: 088794 430123-1-94-02 Function: 215 Object Code: 751000 Federal Number: N/A Org. Code: 55042010429
More informationEEOC v. Stephens Institute d/b/a The Academy of Art College
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program --00 EEOC v. Stephens Institute d/b/a The Academy of Art College Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton Follow this
More informationCase 9:14-cv WPD Document 251 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2017 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:14-cv-81156-WPD Document 251 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2017 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In re: Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. Securities Litigation
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc PAULINE COSPER, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-11-0083-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 10-0266 THE HONORABLE JOHN CHRISTIAN REA, )
More informationCONNECTICT FALSE CLAIMS ACT. Title 4, CHAPTER 55e of the General Statutes of Connecticut
As recodified and amended by P.A. 14 217, effective June 13, 2014. CONNECTICT FALSE CLAIMS ACT Title 4, CHAPTER 55e of the General Statutes of Connecticut FALSE CLAIMS AND OTHER PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER STATE
More informationDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
730:25-3-4. Proposals; right to suspend or debar from bidding (a) All proposal blanks will be obtained from the Department's Office Engineer in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (b) Proposal blanks will be stamped
More informationMIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, YARED AMELGA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationStandard terms and conditions
müller quadax gmbh Teslastraße 6 74670 Forchtenberg Germany Tel. +49 7947 828-20 Fax +49 7947 828-14 Email info@quadax.de Website www.quadax.de Section 1 General / scope of application (1) These standard
More informationPARTICIPATING ADDENDUM NASPO ValuePoint Body Armor Products Administered by the State of Colorado (hereinafter Lead State )
PARTICIPATING ADDENDUM NASPO ValuePoint Body Armor Products Administered by the State of Colorado (hereinafter Lead State ) MASTER AGREEMENT Central Lake Armor Express, Inc. dba Armor Express Master Agreement
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BUCK PORTER, Appellant V. A-1 PARTS, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 14, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01468-CV BUCK PORTER, Appellant V. A-1 PARTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at
More informationSAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS No. 19 of 2011
1 No. 19 of 2011. Public Service Act, 2011. 19. Saint Christopher and Nevis. I assent, LS CUTHBERT M SEBASTIAN Governor-General. 20 th July, 2011. SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS No. 19 of 2011 AN ACT to provide
More informationTHE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT. BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar
THE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar Attorney at Law Board Certified Criminal Law 1306 Nueces St. Austin,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
10/16/2017 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2017-B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
01/27/2014 "See News Release 005 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
More informationCANADIAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE ENVIRONMENT INC. (CCME)
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE ENVIRONMENT INC. (CCME) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate as of the xx th day of Month, 2016; BETWEEN: Name of Contractor Address City,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 48 X PHOENIX CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., Index No.: 651193/2010 -against- Plaintiff, NOTICE OF APPEAL WEST END ENTERPRISES, LLC, WEST 60
More informationCase 2:16-cv BSB Document 1 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 28
Case :-cv-0-bsb Document Filed // Page of Susan Martin, SBA # 0 Daniel Bonnett, SBA # 0 Evan Schlack, SBA # 0 MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C 0 N. Central Ave., Ste. Phoenix, AZ 00 Telephone: (0 0-00 smartin@martinbonnett.com
More information