Sobel v. Jones

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a person was not engaged in general contracting where ultimate control of the construction projects remained with the owner of the premises
• “The statutory purpose [of A.R.S. § 32-1153] is to prevent unscrupulous or financially irresponsible contractors from deceiving and taking advantage of those who engage them to build.”
• “The statutory purpose ... is to prevent unscrupulous or financially irresponsible contractors from deceiving and taking advantage of those who engage them to build.”
• licensure held not required where ultimate control of construction projects remained with owner of premises, not employee of owner, and alleged contractor would not have been required to complete job on his own responsibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).