| Case Title |
Case No. |
Additional Information |
| 4QTKIDZ LLC et al v HNT Holdings LLC/Beth Ford |
CV-21-0065-PR |
Oral Argument held on 2/15/2022
Case Summary
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 |
| AZ Free Enterprise Club et al v Katie Hobbs et al |
CV-21-0304-AP/EL |
Oral Argument to be held on 4/19/2022
Case Summary |
| Lavelle Bridges v Nationstar Mortgage LLC |
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 |
CV-21-0080-PR |
Oral Argument held on 3/8/2022
Case Summary
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 |
CV-21-0129-PR |
Oral Argument held on 1/13/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 10/5/2021
Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV 20-0279 |
| Matthew Cavallo et al v Phoenix Health Plans Inc |
CV-21-0051-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 3/1/2022: “Were the jury instructions on contract waiver and mitigation of damages proper in this bad faith tort case?”
Opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV-20-0167 |
| Graeme Hancock v Hon. O’Neil/State Bar of Arizona |
CV-21-0145-SA |
Oral Argument held on 4/12/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Special Action accepted over this rephrased issue on 1/4/2022: Whether and to what extent issue preclusion applies in bar disciplinary proceedings. |
| Harris/Heartmedia v Hon. Randall Warner/McCarthy |
CV-21-0242-PR |
Oral Argument to be held on 4/14/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 1/4/2022 |
| Oyt Jackson v ICA/First Transit et al |
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 |
CV-21-0125-PR |
Oral Argument held on 1/11/2022
Case Summary
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 |
CV-20-0152-PR |
Oral Argument issued on 3/22/2022
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 |
CV-21-0031-PR |
Opinion issued on 2/3/2022
Oral Argument 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 |
| Timothy Matthews v ICA/City of Tucson/Tristar |
CV-21-0192-PR |
Oral Argument to be held on 4/19/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 2/8/2022: Is A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B) unconstitutional as applied to claimants who work in high-stress occupations such as law enforcement?
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-IC 20-0001 |
| Ronnie McDaniel et al v Payson Healthcare et al |
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 |
| Gred Mills et al v ABTR et al |
CV-21-0203-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 3/1/2022
Memorandum Decision issued by the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV-20-0510 |
| Morgan/Neff v Hons. Dickerson/Cardinal/State |
CV-21-0198-PR |
Oral Argument to be held on 4/19/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 2/8/2022
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case Nos. 2 CA-SA 21-0007 and 2 CA-SA 21-0019 |
| Clinton Roberts et al v State |
CV-21-0077-PR |
Oral Argument 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 |
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 |
CV-21-0001-PR |
Opinion issued on 2/1/2022
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 |
CV-21-0023-PR |
Oral Argument 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 |
CV-21-0130-PR |
Oral Argument held on 2/15/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 12/7/2021
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-TX 20-0004 |
|
Southern Arizona Home Builders v Town of Marana
|
CV-21-0211-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 4/5/2022
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CV 20-0087
|
| Staker & Parson Companies v Scottsdale Insurance Co |
CV-21-0256-CQ |
Oral Argument to be held on 4/14/2022
Case Summary
Certified Question accepted on 1/4/2022 |
| State v Hon. Aragon/Max Fontes |
CR-20-0304-PR |
Opinion issued on 3/21/2022
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 |
CV-21-0174-SA |
Oral Argument held on 2/10/2022
Case Summary not yet available
Jurisdiction accepted on 11/2/2021 |
| State v Bayron Perez Agueda |
CR-21-0097-PR |
Oral Argument 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 |
CR-17-0368-AP |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available |
| State et al v AZ Board of Regents et al |
CV-21-0134-PR |
Opinion issued on 4/5/2022
Oral Argument 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 |
CR-18-0341-PC |
Oral Argument held on 1/11/2022
Case Summary
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 Scott Lee Deshaw |
CR-21-0400-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to Issue one only on 4/5/2022
|
| State v Jordan Christopher Ewer |
CR-21-0059-PR |
Oral Argument held on 1/25/2022
Case Summary
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 |
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 Beau John Greene |
CR-21-0082-PC |
Oral Argument held on 3/8/2022
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 1/4/2022 |
| State v Bryan Mitchell Lietzau |
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 Nicolas Luviano |
CR-21-0329-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 3/1/2022: “What standard governs whether a statute describes a single unified offense or separate offenses, and how does that apply in this case?”
Opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, Division 2, Case No. 2 CA-CR 19-0102 |
| State v Rahim Muhammad |
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 Bobby Charles Purcell |
CR-21-0398-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted as to Issue one only on 4/5/2022
|
| State v Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson |
CR-18-0284-AP |
Oral Argument held on 1/13/2022
Case Summary |
| State v Preston Alton Strong |
CR-17-0201-AP |
Oral Argument held on 5/5/2020
Case Summary |
|
State v Kenneth Wayne Thompson II
|
CR-19-0141-AP |
Opinion issued on 1/19/2022
Oral Argument held on 12/14/2021
Case Summary |
| Swift Transportation Co of AZ v Hon. Carman et al |
CV-20-0119-PR |
Oral Argument held on 11/19/2020
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted on 8/25/2020 |
| TFLTC LLC v Beth Ford |
CV-21-0133-PR |
Case Summary
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as rephrased: Does the holding of Leveraged Land Co. v. Hodges, 226 Ariz. 382 (2011) strictly limit recovery of a plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs in a tax lien foreclosure action under A.R.S. § 42-18201 to only those incurred before the date of redemption, or can a plaintiff recover reasonable attorney fees and costs that were incurred after redemption when those fees were incurred as part of the legal action to which A.R.S. § 42-18206 refers?
Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case Nos. 2 CA-CV-2020-0122 et al |
| Melissa Varela v FCA US LLC et al |
CV-20-0157-PR |
Opinion issued on 3/1/2022
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 |
| Gerald Walker et al v Auto-Owners Insurance Comp |
CV-21-0236-CQ |
Oral Argument held on 4/12/2022
Case Summary
Certified Question accepted on 1/4/2022 |
| Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v Hon. Bernini/State |
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? |
| Antoinette Windhurst v ADOC et al |
CV-21-0288-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 4/5/2022
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CV 20-0162
|
| Tina Zambrano v M & RC II LLC et al |
CV-21-0205-PR |
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 3/1/2022
Opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CV-19-0635 |