Arizona Judicial Branch

Rule Petitions Denied or Closed




This rule amendment proposed by this petition would have required the court to mail to plaintiff a copy of the proof of service of a protective order on the defendant.


SCR 123
This petition requested authority to make probate records available electronically.  The petition was closed because it was superseded by R-13-0002.


ARE Rule 412
This petition proposed that statements of charges for medical, hospital or other health care expenses be admissible in evidence as prima facie evidence that the charges are reasonable.


Rule 8, Uniform Rules of Procedure for the Commissions on Appellate and Trial Court Appointments
This petition requested a new rule that would require a competitive examination for judicial applicants on the common law, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, and various rules of procedure.


Criminal Rule
The petition proposed that the doctrine of preclusion not apply to post-conviction claims involving a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  (Cross-reference this petition to rule petition #R-11-0016, which is now “closed.”)


Criminal Rule 17.4

The petition proposed the addition of two new sections to Rule 17.4 that would have required:
  • Prosecutors to reduce to writing and file with the court an unaccepted plea offer no later than five days after rejection or expiration of the offer.
  • Clerks to maintain the plea offer as a confidential record.
  • The court to inquire of the parties, before proceeding to trial, whether they engaged in settlement discussions and, if so, assure that the parties complied with the requirements above.


SCR 123

The petition stated, “The purpose of this petition is 1) to encourage the Court's various committees to post meeting minutes on their Internet pages within five working days after a public meeting, 2) to encourage judicial officers not to micro-manage record requests and, 3) to encourage judicial offices not to gouge the public with usurious interpretations of statutory public record request fee schedules.”

The petition did not contain specific text for any of these proposed amendments.


SCR 28
This petition would have precluded the State Bar, as an entity, from filing petitions under Rule 28 [“Procedure for adoption, amendment or repeal of rules”], or from filing comments to rule petitions.


Civil Rule
This petition would amend Rule 42(f)(1)(D)(ii)(dd) to specify that an ex parte hearing did not constitute the commencement of a trial, and therefore is not a waiver of the entitlement to a change of judge as a matter of right.


Criminal Rules 10.1 & 10.6
These proposed amendments would have clarified the procedure for change of judge for cause when the challenged judge is the only judge in a particular court, or one of only two judges.


Criminal Rule
The petition proposed elimination of the “avowal” requirement in Rule 10.2 [“change of judge upon request.”]


(all rules)
This petition asserted that the ARPOP are unconstitutional, and it proposed repeal of these rules in their entirety.