| |
| |
| |
| |
| 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. |