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. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 14 Nov 2012 01:56 PM by  kcgreif
R-11-0031 Rule 4.1(i), Ariz.R.Civ.Proc. (“Service of process within Arizona”)
 60 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 4 of 4 << < 1234
Author Messages
kcgreif
Posts:

--
14 Nov 2012 01:56 PM
The Court is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The proposed revision does not solve a number of problems and creates some new ones.

1. Is it reasonable or sensible to expect someone that is filing a Notice of Claim for something like "use of "excessive force" to deliver the Notice of Claim a Police Officer's "dwelling house or usual place of abode? (Rule 4.1 (d))

2. Can the State legally restrict access to public records that give the addresses of public safety personnel or government employees when that information is required for service of a Notice of Claim to an Individual? (Rule 4.1(d))

3. How would a person filing a Notice of Claim upon an Individual know if "an agent is authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process"? (Rule 4.1 (d))

4. How would a person filing a Notice of Claim get Court approval to use "Alternative or Substituted Services"? (Rule 4.1 (m))

5. Under draft Rule 4.1(h)(4)(A) what statutes designate who is to receive service of process and how is the name of the designated person disclosed?

6. Under draft Rule 4.1(h)(4)(B) if the entity has designated an individual to receive service but the Notice of Claim is filed with "the chief executive officer(s), or alternatively, the official secretary, clerk or recording officer" does this meet the service requirements?

I would really appreciate answers to these question or revisions to the draft that eliminate them.

There are more significant problems with the Notice of Claim Statute that have been raised previously in the forum. A cursory examination of the number of Court cases related to the Notice of Claim Statute shows that it is a trap for the unwary and costly for the Courts.

The proposed revision does not solve many of the problems. Other states, Washington for example, have come up with better solutions. Why not fix the problems?

Kevin Greif

1140 North Opal Drive
Prescott, AZ 86303
(928)776-2422
KCGreif@hotmail.com
Topic is locked
Page 4 of 4 << < 1234