Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 32
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1151 (2026)

Engaging in contracting without license prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or a combination of any of them, to engage in the business of, submit a bid or respond to a request for qualification or a request for proposals for construction services as, act or offer to act in the capacity of or purport to have the capacity of a contractor without having a contractor's license in good standing in the name of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization as provided in this chapter, unless the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization is exempt as provided in this chapter. Evidence of securing a permit from a governmental agency or the employment of a person on a construction project shall be accepted in any court as prima facie evidence of existence of a contract.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Off. v. Downie, 189 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Off. v. Downie, 189 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 18× “See A.R.S. § 32-1151 (making it unlawful for an unlicensed contractor to engage in the business of contracting without a license, to submit bids or proposals, to respond to requests for qualification or proposals for construction services, to act or offer to act as a licensed…”
State v. Wilkinson, 39 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 4× “) §§ 32-1151, 32-1164. The municipal judge conducted a restitution hearing pursuant to A.”
Smith v. Pinnamaneni, 254 P.3d 409 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “2006) (ROC complaint against contractor alleging violation of AR.S. § 32-1151; administrative law judge found contractor did not substantially comply with licensing requirements); City of Phx.”
Wb, the Bldg. Co., LLC. v. El Destino, 257 P.3d 1182 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “WB argues that, because Appellees specifically claim that both the arbitration agreement and the underlying contract are void pursuant to §§ 32-1151 and 32-1153, Appellees fail to make a separate and distinct challenge to the arbitration agreement.”
Arizona Com. Diving Servs., Inc. v. Applied Diving Servs., Inc., 129 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “to engage in the business of, submit a bid or respond to a request for qualification or a request for proposals for construction services as, act or offer to act in the capacity of or purport to have the capacity of a contractor without having a contractor’s license in good…”
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., 41 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 32-1151 (2000). Under this paradigm, we could not create a judicial exception to the explicit language laid out by our legislature.”
B & P Cpncrete, Inc. v. Turnbow, 561 P.2d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “Desert Springs having been decided by this court two years before, the legislature closed the door on the very exception allowed by Desert Springs when it specifically provided a bar to a claim by an unlicensed “contracting party whose contract gives rise to the claim .”
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Constr. L.L.C., 114 P.3d 835 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 32-1151 (2002). Finally, Subcontractor’s reason for refusing to perform the obligation was that it could not adequately staff the job, which further confirms that its bid involved the sale of services.”
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Off. v. Downie, 162 P.3d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “1 Noting that the bid had been written *32 by MLM and that MLM was the payee on every check tendered by the victims, the court convicted Matykiewicz of contracting without a license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151. ¶ 5 Immediately after trial, the municipal court proceeded to…”
Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. via Entrada Townhouses Ass'n, 514 P.2d 503 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 32-1151 prohibits one from engaging in contracting without a license.”
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “section 32-1151, which provides: It is unlawful for a person .”
State v. Miller, 836 P.2d 1004 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The real party in interest was charged in a misdemeanor complaint in February 1991 with one count of operating as a contractor without a license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151, and one count of advertising as a contractor without a license in violation of A.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.