| Tuesday, October 29, 2019 (Parts 2 of 2) - Motions
|
| Tuesday, October 29, 2019 (Parts 2 of 2) - Petitions for Review
|
|
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Court's mandate.
|
|
|
|
|
| WALTER ANSLEY et al v BANNER HEALTH NETWORK et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0077-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 11/20/2019
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/27/2019 as to issues 1 through 3 and this additional issue: Are attorney’s fees awardable under either A.R.S. § 12-341.01 or the private attorney general doctrine?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0075
|
|
|
| BRUSH & NIB et al v CITY OF PHOENIX
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-18-0176-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 9/16/2019
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 1/22/2019
|
Case
Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 11/20/2018
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0602
|
|
|
| Petition for Review and Cross-Petition for Review granted as to the following issues rephrased on April 3, 2019: Did the court of appeals err in its rulings: (a) affirming partial summary judgment and holding that the OTCs are “brokers” under Model City Tax Code (“MCTC”) § 444 and therefore their service fees are subject to municipal taxation [Petition]; (b) reversing partial summary judgment and holding that because the OTCs are not “hotels,” they are not subject to taxation under MCTC § 447 [Cross-Petition]; and (c) reversing the superior court’s ruling that the Cities may not assess tax, penalties, and interest for tax years before 2013 [Petition].
|
| Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case Nos. 1 CA-TX 16-0016 and 1 CA-TX 16-0018
|
|
|
| E.H. v HON. SLAYTON/STATE et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0118-PR
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, 1 CA-SA 19-0004
|
|
|
| HWAL’BAY VA J ENTERPRISES INC v HON. JANTZEN/FOX
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0123-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 11/5/2019
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/27/2019
|
|
|
| JOHNSON UTILITIES LLC v ARIZONA CORPORATION et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0105-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 11/5/2019
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/29/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-SA-18-0197
|
|
|
| SUSAN LAGERMAN v ARIZONA STATE RETIRMENT SYSTEM
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0101-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 12/17/2019
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, 1 CA-CV 18-0014
|
|
|
| SAGUARO HEALING LLC v STATE OF ARIZONA et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0129-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 12/17/2019
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019 as to Issue #B only
|
| Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, 1 CA-CV 18-0242
|
|
|
| SANDRA R./SERGIO C. v DCS/M.R./F.M./J.M.
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0057-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 10/15/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Mother's Petition for Review granted on 8/27/2019 as to Issue #1 only.
|
| Appellant Sergio C.'s Petition for Review granted on 8/27/2019 as to Issue #2 only as rephrased: Does it violate due process to make the nexus finding in the best-interests inquiry?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No 1 CA-JV 18-0147
|
|
|
| STEVEN SHOLEM v HONS. GASS/CONTES/MELISSA LANGEVIN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0149-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 12/17/2019
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019
|
|
|
| STATE v JOHN MICHAEL ALLEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0556-AP
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| 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 BOBBY RAY CARTER JR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0508-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 9/20/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 4/30/2019, only as to the issues rephrased as follows: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that (1) theft is a lesser-included offense of theft as a means of transportation, thus giving rise to impermissible double punishments; (2) theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, thus giving rise to impermissible multiple punishments; and (3) a more severely-penalized offense can be a lesser-included offense of a less-severely-penalized offense for multiple-punishment purposes?
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No 2 CA-CR 17-0149
|
|
|
| STATE v ALAN MATTHEW CHAMPAGNE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0425-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 8/7/2019
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/9/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v DAVID LEE GREEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0537-PR
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/26/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 5/28/2019
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 17-0208
|
|
|
| STATE v CHARLES MICHAEL HEDLUND
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-93-0377-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 12/10/2018
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/6/2018
|
Case
Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 12/18/2018
|
|
|
| STATE v JAMES CLAYTON JOHNSON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-16-0261-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 8/23/2019
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/6/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v PHILIP JOHN MARTIN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0380-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/9/2019
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/9/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to this issue only: “Was the prosecution barred by double jeopardy from re-trying Appellant for first degree murder after a conviction of second degree murder in a prior trial?” on 3/20/2019
|
| Opinion and Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR 16-0551
|
|
|
| STATE v JAMES ERIN McKINNEY
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-93-0362-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 9/27/2018
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/6/2018
|
| Case
Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v HECTOR SEBASTION NUNEZ-DIAZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0514-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 7/16/2019
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/7/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 3/5/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One No. 1 CA-CR 16-0793
|
|
|
| STATE v RICHARD ALLEN REED
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0059-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 10/15/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/27/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No 1 CA-CR 17-0620
|
|
|
| STATE v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEY
|
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-15-0411-AP
|
Oral Argument held on 9/10/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v PRESTON ALTON STRONG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0201-AP
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v OSCAR PENA TRUJILLO
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0531-PR
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/26/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on 5/28/2019 as to 1. Was Trujillo entitled to a jury finding on M.A.C.’s age when that fact increased the mandatory minimum sentence affecting sex-offender registration? 2. Was the error harmless? 3. Should this Court reconsider the opinion in State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171, (1992)
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 17-0241
|
|
|
| JOHN TERRELL v RUBY TORRES
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0106-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 10/15/2019
|
Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on 8/27/2019 as to these issues: 1. Did the court of appeals correctly interpret an in vitro fertilization agreement to permit respondent to use the subject embryos? 2. Did the court of appeals err by failing to remand for the trial court to balance the parties’ interests concerning disposition of the subject embryos?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No 1 CA-CV 17-0617 FC
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Court'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.
|