FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.




Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

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. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION OR COMMENT.  OTHERWISE, YOUR SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED AND WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHY. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 06 May 2020 05:22 PM by  Victor Aronow
R-20-0022 Petition to Amend Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., Rule 28, (g) (3)
 9 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Mo
New Member
Posts:8 New Member

--
10 Jan 2020 03:40 PM
    Mauricio R. Hernandez (#020181)
    P.O. Box 7347
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    Telephone: (623) 363-2649
    mo@lawmrh.com

    This petition would amend Arizona Supreme Court Rule 28, "Procedure for Adoption, Amendment, and Abrogation of Court Rules," specifically subsection (g) (3) "Notice," by proposing that where the Court takes action on a petition, notices should contain a simple disclosure of the Court's thinking and the polling of justices. This proposal supports longstanding state policy favoring open, transparent, and accountable government and an informed Arizona citizenry.

    Would amend Sup. Ct. Rule 28(g)(3) to require the Sup. Ct. to explain its reasons for granting or denying rule petitions

    Filed January 10, 2020.

    Comment must be submitted on or before May 1, 2020.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:158 Basic Member

    --
    29 Jan 2020 03:17 PM
    Dianne Post
    1826 E Willetta St
    Phoenix, AZ 85006-3047
    602-271-9019

    It would seem axiomatic that the Supreme Court would give a rationale for the passage or refusal of passage of a rule. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court ultimately not only to interpret the law but to explain its reasoning to the rest of us. Such reasoning is required of trial court judges and should be all the way up.
    Andrea Angulo Gutierrez
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    06 Feb 2020 08:30 AM
    Andrea Angulo Gutierrez
    The Angulo Law Firm, PLLC
    PO Box 8025
    Chandler, AZ 85246-8025


    I cannot imagine how adding this change to the rule would be a negative thing. I support this petition. Thank you, Andrea
    Richard W. Morris
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    07 Mar 2020 03:59 PM

    Dr. Richard W. Morris, J.D., Ph.D.
    Attorney at Law (Retired)
    16845 N. 29th Ave, #1245
    Phoenix, AZ 85053
    Tel. +1 623-582-2574

    I support this Petition. The most important aspect of the Petition is to lay bare to public scrutiny the reasoning, or lack thereof, of a judicial decision. Not only does the openness increase transparency for the public, but it also explains to clients and counsel why the court ruled the way it did in any particular case.
    George Schade
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    24 Mar 2020 02:22 PM
    George A. Schade, Jr.
    5701 East Wilshire Drive
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85257
    Tel. (480) 949-8946
    SBA 003289 (Ret.)

    I support this petition. Explanations given for the decision on a petition assure clearer understanding of the outcome, provide guidance to courts, counsel and litigants, and reduce repetitive and redundant petitions. Adopting and amending rules should be an efficient process. These are reasons why rules come with explanatory comments. Furthermore, the prior respondents have made excellent and valid points.
    Patricia A. Sallen
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 11:16 AM
    Patricia A. Sallen
    3104 E. Camelback Road #541
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    480-290-4841
    psallen@ethicsatlaw.com
    Bar no. 012338
    Attachments
    David Euchner
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 08:11 PM
    COMMENT OF DAVID EUCHNER REGARDING PETITION TO AMEND RULE 28, ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

    DAVID J. EUCHNER, SB#021768
    David.Euchner@pima.gov
    33 N. Stone Ave., 21st Floor
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    (520) 724-9107
    Attachments
    Michael Kielsky
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    04 May 2020 05:32 PM
    Michael Kielsky
    Attorney At Law
    480.461.5309 Direct | 480.833.9392 Fax
    1138 N. Alma School Rd., Suite 101 | Mesa, AZ 85201
    MK@USazLaw.com

    I urge adoption of the rule change proposed in this Petition for most of the reasons already articulated, including openness, transparency, access to justice and guidance for future rule petitions. For advocates, participants, and parties, there is little that is worse than having a legal matter or question decided in the adverse -- except receiving an adverse decision with no explanation or reasoning whatsoever -- adopting this change would at least explain a denial, and perhaps guide future attempts by describing the limitations, concerns, or problems in the reasoned denial of a rule change petition.

    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:158 Basic Member

    --
    05 May 2020 12:24 PM
    Joseph Robert Giannini
    j.r.giannini@verizon.net

    I support the proposal to amend Rule 28(g)(3), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., and urge The Arizona Supreme Court to make its reasoning transparent and disclose more information about its actions when it discharges its constitutionally mandated administrative duty to make court rules.
    Victor Aronow
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    06 May 2020 05:22 PM
    CENTRAL ARIZONA NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
    Victor Aronow (AZ Bar # 002764)
    P.O. Box 27617 Tempe, AZ 85285-7617
    VictorAronow@aol.com
    (480) 829-5746

    The Central Arizona Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild supports this petition as a necessary adjunct to the uniform and unbiased application of the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona.
    Attachments
    Topic is locked