penalty clause in Arizona

1999However, the supreme court established forfeiture as the penalty for violation of the approval statute in Hornback, 106 Ariz. at 219 , 474 P.2d at 810 .

1999However, the supreme court established forfeiture as the penalty for violation of the approval statute in Hornback, 106 Ariz. at 219 , 474 P.2d at 810 .

2020Huntington, 146 U.S. at 673–74. ¶38 Finally, in a related argument, MD Helicopters contends that the Hague Judgment is a “penalty” under the Huntington test because its award of the sum contemplated by the penalty clause was entirely divorced from the actual injury suffered by the National Police.

2020Id. at 1004–05 (emphasis omitted) (citing In re Nolan W., 203 P.3d 454, 466 (Cal. 2009)). ¶37 Here, if the purpose of the penalty clause was to deter Helifly from breaching the supply contract by setting a sum for each day of noncompliance with its provisions, that fact alone does not render the Hague Judgment a penalty.

2000Thus, the Uniform Code, the Restatement, and the Arizona statute all refer to probable cause as the key issue in deciding whether to enforce a penalty clause. ¶8 The court of appeals construed the statutory language to mean that probable cause would exist if a “reasonably prudent person ... [would believe] that the will is invalid.” Shumway, 197 Ariz. at 65 ¶ 29, 3 P.3d at 985 ¶ 29.

2000Thus, the Uniform Code, the Restatement, and the Arizona statute all refer to probable cause as the key issue in deciding whether to enforce a penalty clause. ¶8 The court of appeals construed the statutory language to mean that probable cause would exist if a “reasonably prudent person ... [would believe] that the will is invalid.” Shumway, 197 Ariz. at 65 ¶ 29, 3 P.3d at 985 ¶ 29.

1995United States v. Bosque, 691 F.2d 866 , 868 n. 2 (9th Cir.1982).

1993Likewise in State v. City Court, where a chief city magistrate required all prosecutors to file an avowal of good faith when striking a magistrate under Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court held the order invalid as an unauthorized local rule because 1) it set a course of conduct contrary to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 2) the order created a penalty for its violation. 150 Ariz. at 100-103 , 722 P.2d at 268-271 .

1993Likewise in State v. City Court, where a chief city magistrate required all prosecutors to file an avowal of good faith when striking a magistrate under Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court held the order invalid as an unauthorized local rule because 1) it set a course of conduct contrary to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 2) the order created a penalty for its violation. 150 Ariz. at 100-103 , 722 P.2d at 268-271 .

1985Restatement of Contracts, § 339(1) (1932); Wright v. Schutt Construction Co., 262 Or. 619 , 500 P.2d 1045 (1972).

1985Restatement of Contracts, § 339(1) (1932); Wright v. Schutt Construction Co., 262 Or. 619 , 500 P.2d 1045 (1972).

1959We shall next consider plaintiff’s contention that the contract sued upon is enforceable in any event for the reason that Section 61-341, A.C.A.1939, does not contain a penalty clause, and that by virtue thereof the contract is taken out of the area contemplated by Northen v. Elledge, 72 Ariz. 166 , 232 P.2d 111 in which we- held that a contract founded upon an act for which a penalty is imposed by statute is void.

1959We shall next consider plaintiff’s contention that the contract sued upon is enforceable in any event for the reason that Section 61-341, A.C.A.1939, does not contain a penalty clause, and that by virtue thereof the contract is taken out of the area contemplated by Northen v. Elledge, 72 Ariz. 166 , 232 P.2d 111 in which we- held that a contract founded upon an act for which a penalty is imposed by statute is void.

1949Counsel for appellees claim that the case of City of Phoenix v. Breuninger, 50 Ariz. 372 , 72 P.2d 580 , and the case of Gardenhire v. State, supra, are authority for the board of supervisors to enact the ordinance in question.

1949Counsel for appellees claim that the case of City of Phoenix v. Breuninger, 50 Ariz. 372 , 72 P.2d 580 , and the case of Gardenhire v. State, supra, are authority for the board of supervisors to enact the ordinance in question.

1915Paragraph 385, Id., gives jurisdiction to justices of the peace of criminal cases other than felonies, where the punishment is a fine not exceeding $300, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both.