Court Opinion

ID: 9559177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:24:00.381634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:56.100916
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Motion for Rehearing
HATHAWAY, Judge.
A motion for rehearing has been filed by the appellee, in which appellant concurred, for the purpose of calling to the court’s attention prior case law in this jurisdiction which both parties feel might mandate a contrary result. We commend appellee’s candor and after consideration of Commer-*420rial Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 64 Ariz. 129, 166 P.2d 943 (1946), and cases cited therein, we adhere to our original decision.
In Commercial Life, it was held that, absent statutory authority to grant a rehearing, a quasi-judicial tribunal has no power to revoke, annul or modify a decision. Such is not the case here, as the real estate commissioner had authority to make rules and regulations necessary to administer and enforce Title 32, Chapter 20: A.R.S. Sec. 32-2125.02 (repealed in 1975 and replaced by A.R.S. Sec. 32-2107 (E). Rule R4-28-19(N) of the Administrative Rules and Regulations of the State of Arizona Real Estate Commission was thus adopted pursuant to statutory authority. Under these circumstances, the rule had the same force and effect of law. Gibbons v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 95 Ariz. 343, 390 P.2d 582 (1964). Therefore appellee had authority to reconsider the revocation of appellant’s license and the rationale of the case law pointed out in the motion for rehearing is not apposite.
Rehearing denied.
HOWARD, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.
NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. Sec. 12-120 (E).