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 held on 12/8/2020

Case Summary

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

DIANNAH DINSMOOR v CITY OF PHOENIX et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0214-PR

Oral Argument held on 3/11/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 12/15/2020

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0045

FANN et al v STATE et al/INVEST IN EDUCATION et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-21-0058-T/AP

Oral Argument held on 4/20/2021

Case Summary

Petition to Transfer granted on 3/4/2021

BETH FAY v HON. FOX/STATE/JORDAN HANSON

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0306-PR

Oral Argument held on 1/14/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to this rephrased issue on 11/3/2020: “Is a victim entitled to be heard on a Rule 32.1(f) Request for Delayed Appeal concerning restitution?”

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

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

RONNIE MCDANIEL et al v PAYSON HEALTHCARE et al

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

Oral Argument to be held on 9/21/2021

Case Summary not yet available

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

JAVAN MESNARD et ux v HON. CAMPAGNOLO/SHOOTER

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0209-PR

Oral Argument held on 3/9/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to issues 1 and 2 on 12/15/2020

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

CONCETTA RIZZIO v SURPASS SENIOR LIVING LLC et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0058-PR

Oral Argument held on 11/17/2020

Case Summary

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

Opinion issued on 4/29/2021

Oral Argument held on 11/19/2020

Case Summary

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

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

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

Oral Argument to be held on 9/28/2021

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 5/4/2021

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

MICHELLE SAMPSON et al v SURGERY CENTER et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0024-PR

Oral Argument held on 2/9/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 11/3/2020

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0113

SPECIALTY COMPANIES GROUP et al v MERITAGE HOMES

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0086-PR

Oral Argument held on 2/11/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 12/15/2020

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0708

STATE v HON. ARAGON/MAX FONTES

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

Oral Argument to be held on 9/21/2021

Case Summary not yet available

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 CITY OF TUCSON

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0244-SA

Opinion issued on 4/14/2021

Oral Argument held on 1/12/2021

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 RONALD BRUCE BIGGER

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-20-0383-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 6/1/2021

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 4/13/2021

Opinion from Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 19-0012PRPC

STATE v WADE NOLAN CLAY

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0489-PR

Opinion issued on 10/9/2020

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 MARK NORIKI KASIC JR

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0379-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:

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 CRAIG MILLER

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0061-PC

Opinion issued on 5/4/2021

Oral Argument held on 2/11/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 11/3/2020

STATE v WILLIAM MIXTON

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0276-PR

Opinion issued on 1/11/2021

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 v VIVEK A PATEL

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0366-PR

Opinion issued on 5/4/2021

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 KEYAIRA PORTER

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

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 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:

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

SUN CITY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION v ACC et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0047-PR

Oral Argument to be held 5/18/2021

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted as to both issues as rephrased on 3/2/2021:

1. Whether the Corporation Commission caused unlawful rate discrimination by

consolidating several districts served by one public service corporation into a

single district, where substantial cost of service differences existed among the

formerly independent districts.

2. Whether the Corporation Commission’s constitutional status commands

“extreme deference” to its decisions.

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CC 17-0002

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

DAVID WELCH v COCHISE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0322-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 6/3/2021

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 4/13/2021

Opinion from Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CV 19-0101

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 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.