Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 21 Jul 2008 01:54 PM by  lkoschney
R-08-0001 Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure
 2 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
ecrowley
Posts:

--
08 Jan 2008 10:51 AM
    R-08-0001

    PETITION TO AMEND RULE 7, SUPERIOR COURT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE - CRIMINAL; RULE 12, SUPERIOR COURT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE - CIVIL; AND RULE 29, CIVIL TRAFFIC RULES

    TO ALLOW THE TRIAL COURT TO SET A TRIAL DE NOVO, AND THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REMAND TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO, WHEN THE RECORD IS INSUFFICIENT FOR AN APPEAL; AND TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF STAY OF "SENTENCE" AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESTITUTION PAYMENTS CONTINUE TO BE PAID PENDING APPEAL.

    Petitioner:
    Hon. George T. Anagnost
    Peoria Municipal Court
    8401 West Monroe St.
    Peoria, AZ 85345
    (623)773-7420

    Filed January 8, 2008

    Comments due May 20, 2008.

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2009.
    Attachments
    Michael A. Parham
    Posts:

    --
    19 Jul 2008 04:04 PM
    Michael A. Parham, #4853
    5333 N. 7th Street, B-213
    Phoenix, AZ 85014
    (602) 265-6804
    (602) 265-8945 FAX

    This rule is a good idea except that for forcible/special detainers, the time for the trial de novo under SCRAP Civil Rule 12(e)should be reduced to five days after determination that a new trial is necessary. That is a short fuse but statutes require these matters to be heard promptly and forbid continuances exceeding three days in Justice Court.

    This assumes that the forcible/special detainer statutes even will permit a trial de novo in Justice Court. Since the statutes require the notice of appeal to be filed within five days after judgment and have limitations on extending that time (see ARS 12-1179(A)), it is possible that a trial de novo in the lower court would be impermissable absent an amendment to the forcible/special detainer statutes. If permissable, it can be argued that the time to appeal cannot be extended.

    Whatever the decision on that point, applying a 45 day rule to setting eviction re-trials is completely inconsistent with the intent of the forcible/special detainer statutes creating a speedy summary proceeding.
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    21 Jul 2008 01:54 PM
    R-08-0001 Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure

    Michael A. Parham #4853
    5333 N 7th Street, B-213
    Phoenix, AZ 85014
    Ph: (602) 265-6804
    Fax: (602)265-9045
    Attachments
    Topic is locked