Agendas and Cases before the Court


 

                                                         
 
 
 
NOTE:  Cases are listed until the issuance of the Clerk's mandate
 

4QTKIDZ LLC et al v HNT HOLDINGS LLC/BETH FORD

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0065-PR

Oral Argument not yet held

Case Summary not yet available

Consolidated Petition for Review granted on 12/7/2021

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case Nos. 2 CA-CV 19-0187, 2 CA-CV 19-0188 and 2 CA-CV 19-0190
 
ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC et al v STATE

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0234-T/AP

Petition to Transfer accepted on 10/1/2021

Oral Argument held on 11/2/2021 

Case Summary                         
 

TIMOTHY B. v DCS/H.B.

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0318-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 1/25/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 11/2/2021

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-JV 20-0075

 

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

 

LAVELLE BRIDGES v NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0024-PR

Oral Argument held on 11/23/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to these rephrased issues on 8/24/2021: 1. Did recording a notice of trustee sale accelerate the debt here as a matter of law? 2. Was the limitations period here tolled?

Opinion issued on issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0556 

 

ROBERT BURNS v ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0080-PR

Oral Argument not yet held

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted as to Issues #1 and #2 only on 12/7/2021

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0183
 

CAL-AM PROPERTIES INC v EDAIS ENGINEERING INC

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0129-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 1/13/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 10/5/2021

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 20-0279 

 

JESSIE D. v DCS/F.V./M.D./M.D./C.D.

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0321-PR

Opinion issued on 10/8/2021

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

 

OYT JACKSON v ICA/FIRST TRANSIT et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0127-PR

Oral Argument not yet scheduled

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 9/14/2021

Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA IC-20-0013 

 

KIZZEN JAMES et al v CITY OF PEORIA et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0125-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 1/11/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 9/14/2021:

“Is a notice of claim invalid under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(E) if it provides that the

claimant’s settlement offer will terminate in less than sixty days after the notice is

served?”

Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA CV-20-0415 

 

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 
 

KRISTI LATTIN v SHAMROCK MATERIALS LLC et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0031-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 12/14/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 9/14/2021:

“Under A.R.S. § 25-215(D), is a defendant required to join the plaintiff’s spouse

in order to obtain a judgment for attorney fees that’s enforceable against the

plaintiff’s community property?”

Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA CV-20-0245

 

RONNIE MCDANIEL et al v PAYSON HEALTHCARE et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0333-PR

Oral Argument held on 9/21/2021

Case Summary

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 
 
In RE: TODD MCLAUCHLAN
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0095-CQ
Oral Argument held on 9/30/2021
Case Summary
Jurisdiction Accepted on 5/21/2021
 

PEACE RELEAF v HON. SMITH/PREMIER CONSULTING et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0151-SA

Case Summary to be held on 12/16/2021

Oral Argument not yet scheduled

Petition for Special Action jurisdiction accepted on 9/14/2021 

 

CLINTON ROBERTS et al v STATE

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0077-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 12/14/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 9/14/2021

Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA CV-20-0060 

 

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

 

WENDY ROGERS et al v HON. MROZ/PAMELA YOUNG et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0001-PR

Oral Argument held on 9/28/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 5/4/2021

Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-SA 19-0262 
 

HANI W SABA v SAWSAN KHOURY

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0023-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 10/7/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to Issue 1 only on 8/24/2021

Opinion issued on issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0609 FC 
 

SOUTH POINT ENERGY CENTER LLC v ADOR et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0130-PR

Oral Argument not yet held

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 12/7/2021

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-TX 20-0004
 

STATE ex rel ADEL v HON. ADELMAN et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-21-0157-PR

Oral Argument held on 10/12/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 8/24/2021: Did the court of appeals err when it concluded that the defendant’s efforts to shield potentially privileged communications warranted a blanket application of the attorney-client privilege rather than requiring the defendant, as the proponent of the privilege, to establish that each communication is privileged?

Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-SA 21-0028 

 

STATE v HON. ARAGON/MAX FONTES

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0304-PR

Oral Argument held on 9/21/2021

Case Summary

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 HONS. BREARCLIFFE/VASQUEZ et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0174-SA

Oral Argument to be held on 2/10/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Jurisdiction accepted on 11/2/2021

 

STATE v BAYRON PEREZ AGUEDA

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-21-0097-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 10/7/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 8/24/2021

Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR 20-0020  
 
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 et al v AZ BOARD OF REGENTS et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0134-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 12/16/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to these issues as rephrased on 9/14/2021:

1. Was the Attorney General Office’s public-monies claim under §35-212 (count

IV) timely? 2. Did the Attorney General’s Office have statutory authority to bring the claims

set forth in counts I through III of its amended complaint?

Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA TX-20-0003 

 

STATE v DONALD DELAHANTY

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0341-PC

Oral Argument to be held on 1/11/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted as to this issue only as rephrased on 9/14/2021: 

“Did petitioner state a colorable claim for post-conviction relief under Napue v.

Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972),

for the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony from witness Armendariz

that he did not have an agreement with the prosecution concerning his testimony?” 

 

STATE v JORDAN CHRISTOPHER EWER

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-21-0059-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 1/25/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 11/2/2021: Whether a jury instruction on the justification defense of self-defense may incorporate the use of force by both the defendant and the victim as suggested by the language of A.R.S. sec. 13-404(A) or refer only to the defendant as set forth in RAJI Ch. 4.

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 19-0162

 

STATE v SERGIO FIERRO JR

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0435-PR

Oral Argument held on 11/16/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to these rephrased issues on 8/24/2021: 1. How should trial courts instruct juries on attempted second-degree murder? 2. Did the trial court’s fundamental error in instructing the jury on attempted second-degree murder prejudice the defendant?

Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 19-0161 
 
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 RAHIM MUHAMMAD

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-21-0073-PR

Oral Argument held on 11/16/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 8/24/2021: When a defendant’s competency has been put in issue, is the trial court required to make a specific finding of heightened competency before it can find the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to a jury trial?

Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 19-0307 
 

STATE v KEYAIRA PORTER

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0147-PR

Opinion issued on 7/22/2021

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 RICHARD ALLEN REED

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0385-PR

Oral Argument held on 11/23/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 8/24/2021: Are a victim’s private attorney fees recoverable as criminal restitution, particularly considering A.R.S. § 13-4437(A), and if so, to what extent?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR-17-0620
 

STATE v DWANDARRIUS JAMAR ROBINSON

Arizona Supreme Court No CR-18-0284-AP

Oral Argument to be held on 1/13/2022

Case Summary not yet available

 
STATE v PRESTON ALTON STRONG 
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0201-AP 
Oral Argument held on 5/5/2020
Case Summary
 
STATE v KENNETH WAYNE THOMPSON II

Arizona Supreme Court CR-19-0141-AP

Oral Argument to be held on 12/14/2021

Case Summary
 

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 
 

ARANZI RAE JON WILLIS v HON. BERNINI/STATE

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-21-0258-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 2/10/2022

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted as to these rephrased issues on 11/2/2021: 1. Is “clearly exculpatory evidence” defined by the standard set forth in Herrell v. Sargeant, 189 Ariz. 627 (1997) or Trebus v. Davis, 189 Ariz. 621, 623 (1997)? 2. Did the trial court commit error by denying defendant’s motion for remand to the grand jury?

 
 
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.