|
| | 11/2/2021 |
| CV-20-0294-PR | ROBERTO TORRES et al v JAI DINING SERVICES | OPINION |
| Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 10/8/2021 |
| CV-19-0321-PR | JESSIE D. v DCS/F.V./M.D./M.D./C.D. | OPINION |
| James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Christopher P. Staring, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur in part
|
| |
|
| | 10/1/2021 |
| CV-20-0047-PR | SUN CITY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION v ACC et al | OPINION |
| Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Garye L Vasquez, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 9/20/2021 |
| CR-20-0306-PR | BETH FAY v HON. FOX/STATE/JORDAN HANSON | OPINION |
| Clint Bolick, Author; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Sean Brearcliffe, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Dissent; Robert M. Brutinel, Dissent
|
| |
|
| | 9/2/2021 |
| CV-20-0322-PR | DAVID WELCH v COCHISE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al | OPINION |
| Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Cynthia J. Bailey, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 9/1/2021 |
| CV-20-0120-PR | CVS PHARMACY et al v HON. BOSTWICK/TUCSON MEDICAL | OPINION |
| Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 8/25/2021 |
| CV-20-0030-PR | AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF AZ v DCS | OPINION |
| James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 8/19/2021 |
| CV-21-0058-T/AP | KAREN FANN et al v STATE OF ARIZONA et al | OPINION |
| Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Paul J. McMurdie, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur in part; Dissent in part
|
| Constitutionality Decision
The Court holds A.R.S. § 15-1285 unconstitutional as it incorrectly characterizes Prop. 208 revenues for purposes of art. 9, § 21 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court holds § 15-1281(D) unconstitutional to the extent it mandates expenditure of Prop. 208 revenues in excess of the expenditure limitations of art. 9, § 21 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court additionally holds that Prop. 208 does not violate art. 9, § 22 of the Arizona constitution because art. 9, § 22 does not apply to voter initiatives. The bicameralism, presentment, and supermajority requirements found therein are thus inapplicable to Prop. 208. |
|
| | 8/19/2021 |
| CV-20-0082-CQ | MARCIE A REDGRAVE v DOUG DUCEY et al | OPINION |
| Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 8/17/2021 |
| CV-20-0058-PR | CONCETTA RIZZIO v SURPASS SENIOR LIVING LLC et al | OPINION |
| William Montgomery, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur
|
| |
|
|