|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Clerk's mandate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF AZ v DCS
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0030-PR
Oral
Argument
held on 11/17/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to Issue 1 only on 8/25/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 18-0486
|
|
|
|
BANNER MEDICAL v HON. GORDON/JEREMY HARRIS et ux
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0179-PR
Oral Argument held on 2/9/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 11/3/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-SA 19-0051
|
|
|
|
JACOB BENSON et al v CASA DE CAPRI ENT et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0331-CQ
Oral Argument held on 2/18/2021
Case Summary
Jurisdiction accepted on 12/21/2020
|
|
|
|
CARDINAL HEALTH INC et al v HON. BRODMAN et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0029-PR
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to Issues 1 and 2 on 6/1/2021
|
| |
|
THOMAS COX v HON. PONCE/MAKAYLA ESPLIN
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0173-PR
Oral Argument held on 10/13/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue only on 8/25/2020: Was petitioner Cox’s failure to timely file the paternity action excusable? Even if it was excusable, was the paternity action correctly dismissed on the alternate ground of failure of service?
|
|
|
|
CVS PHARMACY et al v HON. BOSTWICK/TUCSON MEDICAL
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0120-PR
Oral Argument held on 12/8/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 9/16/2020 as to these rephrased issues: (2) Whether a hospital may assert a direct claim against a third party it contends caused personal injuries to its patient, even if the patient is covered by Medicaid. (3) Whether a pharmacy that self-distributes prescription opioids to its affiliated pharmacies owes a duty to the hospital.
|
|
|
|
JESSIE D. v DCS/F.V./M.D./M.D./C.D.
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0321-PR
Oral
Argument
held on 9/22/2020
Case
Summary
Petition for Review granted on 5/27/2020
Memorandum
Decision
issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-JV
19-0073
|
|
|
|
DIANNAH DINSMOOR v CITY OF PHOENIX et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0214-PR
Oral Argument held on 3/11/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 12/15/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0045
|
|
|
FANN et al v STATE et al/INVEST IN EDUCATION et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0058-T/AP
Oral Argument held on 4/20/2021
Case Summary
Petition to Transfer granted on 3/4/2021
|
|
|
|
BETH FAY v HON. FOX/STATE/JORDAN HANSON
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0306-PR
Oral Argument held on 1/14/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 11/3/2020: “Is a victim entitled to be heard on a Rule 32.1(f) Request for Delayed Appeal concerning restitution?”
|
|
|
|
ANTHONY GARCIA v HON. BUTLER/STATE
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0298-PR
Opinion issued on 5/26/2021
Oral Argument held on 6/4/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 4/28/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division 2 Case No. 2 CA-SA 19-0017
|
|
|
|
MAARTEN KALWAY v CALABRIA RANCH HOA LLC et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0152-PR
Oral Argument held on 2/18/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 12/15/2020
Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA CV-19-0106
|
|
|
|
RONNIE MCDANIEL et al v PAYSON HEALTHCARE et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0333-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 9/21/2021
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as rephrased to these two issues on 5/4/2021:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err as a matter of law in using a de novo standard of review, and ruling that the treating physicians’ testimony constituted independent expert “standard of care” testimony that violated Rule 26(b)(4)(F), Ariz. R. Civ. P., the “one-expert-per-side rule?"
2. Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s ruling denying a motion to name a former defendant as a nonparty at fault because the former defendant was an indispensable party in the appeal?
Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CV 19-0150
|
|
|
|
JAVAN MESNARD et ux v HON. CAMPAGNOLO/SHOOTER
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0209-PR
Oral Argument held on 3/9/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to issues 1 and 2 on 12/15/2020
|
|
|
|
JORGE ROMERO-MILLAN et al v WILLIAM BARR
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0128-CQ
Oral Argument held on 3/11/2021
Case Summary
Jurisdiction accepted on 12/21/2020
|
|
|
|
CONCETTA RIZZIO v SURPASS SENIOR LIVING LLC et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0058-PR
Oral
Argument
held on 11/17/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue only on 8/25/2020: Whether a plaintiff’s retainer agreement under which her attorney will advance all costs of arbitration can be considered as part of the plaintiff’s individualized showing of her ability to financially bear the costs of arbitration.
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0221
|
|
|
|
WENDY ROGERS et al v HON. MROZ/PAMELA YOUNG et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0001-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 9/28/2021
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 5/4/2021
Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-SA 19-0262
|
|
|
|
MICHELLE SAMPSON et al v SURGERY CENTER et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0024-PR
Oral Argument held on 2/9/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 11/3/2020
Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0113
|
|
|
|
SPECIALTY COMPANIES GROUP et al v MERITAGE HOMES
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0086-PR
Oral Argument held on 2/11/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 12/15/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0708
|
|
|
|
STATE v HON. ARAGON/MAX FONTES
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0304-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 9/21/2021
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as rephrased to these two issues on 5/4/2021:
1. Did the court of appeals err by accepting special action jurisdiction?
2. If not, did the court of appeals err by defining the “event” in a superseding cause defense as defendant’s conduct and finding foreseeability as a matter of law where the defendant’s conduct “event” increased the risk of harm to the victim, thereby eliminating the defense of superseding cause?
Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-SA 20-0031
|
|
|
| STATE v SAMMANTHA LUCILLE REBECCA ALLEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0368-AP
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v CHRISTOPHER AREVALO
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0156-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/7/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review as to this rephrased issue on 3/4/2020: Did the court of appeals correctly hold that A.R.S. § 13-1202(B)(2), a statute enhancing the penalty for threatening or intimidating committed by a member of a criminal street gang, is constitutional?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case Nos. 1 CA-CR 18-0298 and 1 CA-CR 18-0299
|
|
|
|
STATE v RONALD BRUCE BIGGER
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0383-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 6/1/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 4/13/2021
Opinion from Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 19-0012PRPC
|
|
|
| STATE v JOHN MONTENEGRO CRUZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0567-PC
|
| Opinion issued on 6/4/2021 |
| Oral Argument held on 6/2/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted as to these issues as rephrased on 3/31/2020:
1. Was Lynch v. Arizona, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016) (Lynch II) a significant change in the law for purposes of Ariz. R. Cr. P. 32.1(g)?
2. Is Lynch II retroactively applicable to petitioner on collateral review?
3. If Lynch II applies retroactively, would its application have probably overturned petitioner’s sentence per Rule 32.1(g)?
|
|
|
|
STATE v DAVID JOSEPH DUFFY
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0386-PR
Opinion issued on 5/17/2021
Oral
Argument
held on 9/22/2020
Case
Summary
Petition for Review granted as to these issues, as rephrased on
5/27/2020:
1. Whether a claim that the trial
court failed to adequately protect a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to
conflict-free counsel can be raised for the first time on appeal or whether it
must be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief.
2. Whether the court of appeals
erred when it found that the trial court made an insufficient inquiry into the
joint representation in this matter where, inter alia, defense counsel avowed
that both defendants had signed a waiver of any conflict arising from the joint
representation.
Opinion
issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0071
|
|
|
|
STATE OF ARIZONA v HON. MARNER/DARREN GOLDIN
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0315-PR
Opinion issued on 6/1/2021
Oral Argument held on 10/13/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue only on 8/25/2020: Did the court of appeals err by vacating the trial court’s order disqualifying the Arizona Attorney General’s Tucson Office from prosecuting petitioner and instructing that court to reevaluate whether disqualification is warranted based on
factors identified in Gomez v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 223 (1986)?
|
|
|
| STATE v BRYAN MITCHELL LIETZAU
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0132-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/18/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0011
|
|
|
|
STATE v WILLIAM CRAIG MILLER
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0061-PC
Opinion issued on 5/4/2021
Oral Argument held on 2/11/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 11/3/2020
|
|
|
| STATE v WILLIAM MIXTON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0276-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 1/11/2021
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/13/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Cross-Petition for Review granted as to issue #1 only on 11/19/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 17-0217
|
|
|
|
STATE v KEYAIRA PORTER
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0147-PR
Oral Argument held on 1/14/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 11/3/2020: "Did the court of appeals err by holding that in ruling on a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and when confronted with a pattern of strikes against minority jurors, the trial court must determine expressly whether the racially disproportionate impact of the pattern is justified by non-pretextual, race-neutral reasons?”
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA CR-18-0301
|
|
|
| STATE v PRESTON ALTON STRONG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0201-AP
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/5/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
|
SUN CITY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION v ACC et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0047-PR
Oral Argument held on 5/18/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to both issues as rephrased on 3/2/2021:
1. Whether the Corporation Commission caused unlawful rate discrimination by
consolidating several districts served by one public service corporation into a
single district, where substantial cost of service differences existed among the
formerly independent districts.
2. Whether the Corporation Commission’s constitutional status commands
“extreme deference” to its decisions.
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CC 17-0002
|
|
|
|
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO OF AZ v HON. CARMAN et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0119-PR
Oral Argument held on 11/19/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 8/25/2020
|
|
|
|
HAROLD VANGILDER et al v ADOR/PINAL COUNTY et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0040-PR
Oral Argument held on 12/10/2020
Case Summary
Petitions for Review granted on 9/16/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-TX 19-0001
|
|
|
|
MELISSA VARELA v FCA US LLC et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0157-PR
Oral Argument held on 3/16/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 1/5/2021: “Does the implied obstacle preemption doctrine apply under the facts here to preclude Plaintiff’s claims?”
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0209
|
|
|
|
DAVID WELCH v COCHISE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0322-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 6/3/2021
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 4/13/2021
Opinion from Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CV 19-0101
|
|
|
|
NEKO ANTHONY WILSON v HON. HIGGINS/STATE
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0254-PR
Oral Argument held on 10/13/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 8/25/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-SA 20-0095
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Clerk's mandate.
|
|
|
|
|
| Notice: While the clerk's office maintains quality control measures on the information posted, some errors may occur. All posted information is subject to change or amendment.
|