|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Court's mandate.
|
|
|
|
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF AZ v DCS
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0030-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 11/17/2020
Case Summary not yet available
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
|
|
|
| APOLLO EDUCATION v NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0229-CQ
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER
ON 03/17/2020
|
| Certified Question accepted on 10/29/2019
|
|
|
|
ARIZONANS FOR SECOND CHANCES et al v HOBBS
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0098-SA
Decision Order filed 5/13/2020
|
|
|
| CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW CLEMENTS v HON. BERNINI/STATE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0140-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 9/9/2020
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 1/23/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0288
|
|
|
|
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 to be held on 12/8/2020
Case Summary not yet available
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
|
|
|
| EPHRAIM DABUSH et al v SEACRET DIRECT LLC et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0200-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 1/21/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petitions for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0288
|
|
|
| CLAUDIA DUFF v HON. LEE/TUCSON POLICE et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0128-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-SA 18-0058
|
|
|
| HESHMAT DOROSTI v RECOVERY INNOVATIONS et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0136-PR
|
| Oral Argument was to be held on 1/21/2020; Vacated by Order on 1/17/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0617
|
|
|
|
JOHN R FRANCE v ICA/GILA COUNTY/ACIP
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0068-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 12/10/2020
Case Summary not yet available
Petitions for Review granted on 9/16/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-IC 18-0047
|
|
|
|
ANTHONY GARCIA v HON. BUTLER/STATE
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0298-PR
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
|
|
|
| JTF AVIATION et al v CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0209-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 9/18/2020
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER ON 03/17/2020
|
| Petition from Review granted as to Issue 3 only on 1/7/2020
|
| Opinion & Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0530
|
|
|
|
CONCETTA RIZZIO v SURPASS SENIOR LIVING LLC et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0058-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 11/17/2020
Case Summary not yet available
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
|
|
|
|
R.S./S.E. v HON. THOMPSON/TEDDY VANDERS
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0395-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 11/19/2020
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue only on 8/25/2020: Did the court of appeals correctly hold that to be entitled to an in camera review of privileged records as a matter of due process, the defendant must establish a substantial probability that the protected records contain information critical to an element of the charge or defense or that their unavailability would result in a fundamentally unfair trial?
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-SA 19-0080
|
|
|
|
DARCIE SCHIRES et al v CATHY CARLAT et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0027-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 12/8/2020
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 9/16/2020 as to these rephrased issues: 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a private university’s promise to invest in its own business is adequate consideration under article IX, section 7 of the Arizona Constitution (the ‘Gift Clause’)? 2. Did the Court of Appeals err by holding that a commercial real estate firm’s renovation of its own property for its own private profit is adequate consideration under the Gift Clause? 3. Did the Court of Appeals err by concluding that economic development is a public purpose under the Gift Clause?
Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 18-0379
|
|
|
| GREG SHEPHERD v COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0144-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/14/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to the following issues, as rephrased on 1/7/2020: 1. Does A.R.S. § 12-2296 immunize Costco from plaintiff’s negligence claim? 2. Does HIPAA inform the standard of care for negligent disclosure of medical information?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0072
|
|
|
|
STATE BAR v HON. WILLIAM O’NEIL/JUAN MARTINEZ
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0035-SA
Decision Order issued on 7/13/2020
Petition for Special Action jurisdiction accepted on 4/28/2020
|
|
|
| STATE ex rel BRNOVICH v ABOR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0247-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/16/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 2/11/2020: “Did the trial court err by dismissing he first amended complaint?”
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0420
|
|
|
| STATE ex rel BRNOVICH v CITY OF PHOENIX
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0019-SA
|
| Opinion issued on 8/3/2020
|
| Decision Order issued on 4/2/2020
|
| Jurisdiction accepted on 1/22/2020
|
|
|
| STATE v JOHN MICHAEL ALLEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0556-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 4/14/2020
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/18/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| 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 BOBBY RAY CARTER JR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0508-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/13/2020
|
| 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 WADE NOLAN CLAY
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0489-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/4/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:
Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0463
|
|
|
| STATE v JOHN MONTENEGRO CRUZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0567-PC
|
| 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
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
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 CHRIS THOMAS GOMEZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0292-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/2/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review as to this rephrased issue on 3/4/2020: Did the trial court commit reversible error by admitting expert testimony that inconclusive DNA evidence found on the victim had two alleles also present in the defendant’s DNA profile?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 2 CA-CR 18-0052
|
|
|
| STATE v DAVID LEE GREEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0537-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 3/4/2020
|
| 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 PABLO ISAAC HERNANDEZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0193-PR
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER ON 03/17/2020
|
| Petition from Review granted as to Issue A only on 1/7/2020
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0042
|
|
|
| STATE v MARK NORIKI KASIC JR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0379-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/4/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:
Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 19-0143 PRPC
|
|
|
| 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 MIXTON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0276-PR
|
| 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 OF ARIZONA v CLAUDIUS C MURRAY
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0008-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 10/15/2020
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue only on 8/25/2020: Did the prosecutor’s misstatement of the reasonable-doubt standard during rebuttal argument constitute fundamental, prejudicial error?
Opinion and Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 18-0312
|
|
|
|
STATE OF ARIZONA v EASTON COURTNEY MURRAY
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0368-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 10/15/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue only on 8/25/2020: Did the prosecutor’s misstatement of the reasonable-doubt standard during rebuttal argument constitute fundamental, prejudicial error?
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 18-0313
|
|
|
| STATE v VIVEK A PATEL
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0366-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/5/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review as to this rephrased issue on 3/4/2020: Does A.R.S. § 28-672(G) violate the Victims’ Bill of Rights, Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1 (A)(8), by capping victim restitution?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR 18-0774
|
|
|
| STATE v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEY
|
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-15-0411-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 3/10/2020
|
Oral Argument held on 9/10/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v DEMITRES ROBERTSON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0175-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/12/2020
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/14/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to both issues on 2/11/20, with the second issue rephrased as follows: “Should the invited error doctrine apply to prevent appellate relief from illegal, stipulated sentences?”
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0491
|
|
|
STATE v ALLYN AKEEM SMITH
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0295-AP
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 9/29/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v MARTIN RAUL SOTO-FONG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0595-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 10/9/2020
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/4/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:
Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0181 PRPC
|
|
|
| STATE v PRESTON ALTON STRONG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0201-AP
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/5/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v OSCAR PENA TRUJILLO
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0531-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 5/4/2020
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS v MD HELICOPTERS INC
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0112-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 10/15/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 8/25/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 19-0019
|
|
|
|
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO OF AZ v HON. CARMAN et al
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0119-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 11/19/2020
Case Summary not yet available
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 to be held on 12/10/2020
Case Summary not yet available
Petitions for Review granted on 9/16/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-TX 19-0001
|
|
|
|
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 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.
|