Search 

Judicial Performance Review

Who Judges the Judges? You Do!

NEWS and MEETINGS

 

 

No matching records found.

 

 

Judicial Decisions

This search utility below is available for decisions filed with the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Division I.

Click here to search Court of Appeals, Division II.
Search filter ON - Top 1000 records found    Clear search filter
Judge: Timmer, Ann A. Scott
Search Decisions

12345678910...
4/25/2017   CV-16-0029-PRDOBSON BAY CLUB et al v LA SONRISA DE SIENA LLCOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Dissent

4/17/2017   CR-15-0380-PRSTATE OF ARIZONA v ROBERT FISCHEROPINION
 Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

4/13/2017   CR-16-0286-PRSTATE OF ARIZONA v DUSTIN GILLOPINION
 Scott Bales, Author; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

 Andrew Gould, Concur; Rebecca W. Berch, Concur
3/23/2017   CV-16-0087-PRMARY WADE/MARLA PADDOCK v ASRS/ASRS BOARDOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

3/23/2017   CV-16-0133-PRAMERICAN POWER PRODUCTS INC. ET AL V CSK AUTO INC.OPINION
  John Pelander, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Dissent

3/15/2017   CR-15-0049-APSTATE OF ARIZONA V ABEL DANIEL HIDALGOOPINION
 Scott Bales, Author; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

 Constitutionality Decision

Upholding A.R.S. § 13-751 against challenges contending that (1) Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme does not sufficiently narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (2) Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme does not apply equally across the state in violation of the Eighth Amendment; Article 2, Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution; and Article 4, Part 2, Section 19(7) of the Arizona Constitution.  

3/9/2017   CR-15-0387-PRSTATE v DON JACOB HAVATONEOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; John Pelander, Concur in part; Dissent in part; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur in part; Dissent in part

 Constitutionality Decision

Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely (2013), we hold that A.R.S. § 28-1321(C) is unconstitutional as applied to a police-directed blood draw without a warrant or consent where a person suspected of driving under the influence is unconscious, unless police reasonably determine they cannot obtain a warrant without significant delay that would undermine the effectiveness of the blood test.


2/9/2017   CR-16-0227-PRJASON DONALD SIMPSON/JOE PAUL MARTINEZ v. HONS. MILLER/STEINLE/STATEOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur

 Constitutionality Decision

Applying the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), we hold that the provisions of Arizona Constitution article 2, section 22(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 13-3961(A)(3), prohibiting bail for defendants accused of sexual conduct with a minor under age fifteen where proof is evident and the presumption great that they committed such crimes, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee.

2/1/2017   CR-15-0393-PRSTATE v PATRICK McLEOD NISSLEYOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

1/12/2017   CR-13-0088-APSTATE OF ARIZONA v JOEL RANDU ESCALANTE-OROZCOOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

 Constitutionality Decision

Upholding A.R.S. § 13-753 against a challenge that Arizona's framework for determining whether a capital defendant has an intellectual disability, and therefore cannot be sentenced to death, violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 15, of the Arizona Constitution.

12345678910...