|
|
| Tuesday, September 25, 2018 (Part 2 of 2 ) - Motions
|
| Tuesday, September 25, 2018 (Part 2 of 2) - Petitions for Review
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Court's mandate.
|
|
|
| CITY OF SURPRISE v ACC/LAKE PLEASANT et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-18-0137-SA
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 10/4/2018
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Special Action jurisdiction accepted on 8/29/2018
|
|
|
| CONKLIN et ux v MEDTRONIC INC et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0322-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 10/4/2018
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/29/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0252
|
|
|
| DIANA GLAZER v STATE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0229-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/21/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 1/23/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 12/11/2017
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0416
|
|
|
| HOPI TRIBE v ARIZONA SNOWBOWL RESORT et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-18-0057-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 9/4/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 5/8/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0521
|
|
|
| MERTOLA LLC v ALBERTO J SANTOS/ARLENE SANTOS
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0109-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 7/27/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 11/7/2017
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/12/2017
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0168
|
|
|
| ROBERT J NICAISE JR v APARNA SUNDARAM
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-18-0089-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 11/7/2018
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/29/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 17-0069 FC
|
|
|
| PHOENIX CITY PROSECUTOR v HON. LOWERY/CRAIG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-18-0101-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 10/4/2018
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/29/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 17-0168
|
|
|
| SUSAN RYAN v NAPIER/KLEIN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0325-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/23/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/17/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on the following issues as reframed by the Court on 3/20/2018: 1, 2, and 3, and issue 4 reframed as, if Deputy Klein was entitled to assert a justification defense, did the trial court commit reversible error in instructing the jury that the Deputy bore the burden of proof under A.R.S.§13-409?
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CV 16-0155
|
|
|
| ALMA S. v DCS/J.R./I.R.
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0363-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 9/14/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/5/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 5/8/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-JV 16-0497
|
|
|
| ROBIN SILVER et al v PUEBLO DEL SOL WATER CO et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-16-0294-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/9/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 3/8/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petitions for Review granted on the following issues on 12/11/2017:
1. Whether the court of appeals erred to the extent it requires ADWR on remand to consider BLM’s federal reserved water rights under ADWR’s regulation governing the physical availability of a groundwater supply, A.A.C 12-15-716(B).
2. Whether, under A.R.S. section 45-108, ADWR may designate Pueblo’s watersupply as adequate without evaluating potential legal conflicts between Pueblo’s groundwater pumping and BLM’s senior federal reserved water rights that could render Pueblo’s water supply legally unavailable, solely because those water rights have not been adjudicated.
3. Whether the private attorney general doctrine is applicable and permits anaward of fees against Pueblo.
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0811
|
|
|
| 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 JASON EUGENE BUSH
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-11-0107-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 8/16/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/5/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v ALAN MATTHEW CHAMPAGNE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0425-AP
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v ERICK ANTONIO ESCALANTE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0251-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 9/14/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/17/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 3/20/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR 15-0684
|
|
|
| STATE v CHARLES MICHAEL HEDLUND
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-93-0377-AP
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/6/2018
|
Case
Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v JAMES CLAYTON JOHNSON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-16-0261-AP
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v JAMES ERIN McKINNEY
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-93-0362-AP
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/6/2018
|
| Case
Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v SOPHIA LEEANN RICHTER
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0452-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/24/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/15/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on the following issues as reframed by the Court on 3/20/2018:
1. Whether the court of appeals properly applied the “observation evidence” exception in Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), in the context of a duress defense, and 2. Whether an abuser’s constant threats of harm over a three-month period can constitute the “threat or use of immediate physical force” under A.R.S. §13-412(A) sufficient to permit the defendant to raise a duress defense to her allegedly ongoing abuse of her children.
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 16-0141
|
|
|
| STATE v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEY
|
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-15-0411-AP
|
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v JASPER PHILLIP RUSHING
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-15-0268-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 11/6/2017
|
| Oral Argument held on 9/13/2017
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v DAUNTORIAN LYDEL SANDERS
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-14-0302-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 9/13/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/6/2018
|
| 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 JOSE ALEJANDRO ACUNA VALENZUELA
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-14-0351-AP
|
| Oral Argument held on 6/6/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE OF ARIZONA v COURTNEY NOELLE WEAKLAND
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0615-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 10/2/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to issue A(2) only on 8/29/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 16-0186
|
|
|
| TURTLE ROCK III v LYNNE A FISHER
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0339-PR
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petitioner for Review granted on the following reframed issues on 5/8/2018: Are ad hoc penalties per se unreasonable under ARS 33-1803(B)? If ad hoc penalties are permissible, are they unreasonable if they are not based on actual damages to the homeowner association?
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0455
|
|
|
| TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v GRACIELA LEIJA
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-17-0280-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/2/2018
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/8/2018
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 3/20/2018
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0174
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
|