Oral Argument to be held on 10/15/2026

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted 06/02/2026 as to the following rephrased issue only: 

Whether the court of appeals raised a new cause of action, and new legal theory, for the first time on appeal (after initial briefing was completed) and, if so, was it appropriate to do so?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV--24-0518

Oral Argument to be held on 09/09/2026

Case Summary not yet available

Petiton for Review granted on 06/02/2026 as to the following rephrased issue:  

Did the court of appeals err in holding that Terborg’s notice of claim, which offered to settle with the Town of Payson for “One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00),” complied with the “specific amount” requirement in § 12-821.01(A)?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV--25-0080

Oral Argument to be held on 09/09/2026

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 06/02/2026 as to the following rephrashed issues: 

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Does the standard of review in § 12-910(F) apply in a trial de novo under § 12-910(D)?
               2.  Does a jury have the authority to determine the appropriate sanction for unprofessional conduct, if any, under § 32-1551(H) when an appeal from an Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board is heard as a trial de novo by a jury?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV--24-0551

Oral Argument to be held on 09/01/2026

Case Summary not yet available 

Accept Jurisdiction on 06/02/2026, jurisdiction accepted of the following certified questions: 

1. Does the presumption against retroactivity prohibit application of the 2022 amendment to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-1102 to at-will employment agreements that were signed before the 2022 amendment?
2. If the presumption against retroactivity does not apply, does the 2022 amendment void the at-will employment contract between Blunt and the Town of Gilbert because the facts giving rise to Blunt’s termination occurred after enactment of the amendment, such that any discipline imposed against him by the Town must be supported by just cause?
3.  If the 2022 amendment voids the at-will employment contract between Blunt and the Town of Gilbert, would that result in impairment of a vested contractual right in violation of the Contract Clause of the Arizona State Constitution?

Oral Argument to be held on 09/01/2026

Case Summary not yet available 

Petition for Review granted on 06/02/2026 as to the following rephrased issue: 

Did the court of appeals err by failing to apply the factors this Court set out in Transamerica when it concluded that § 41-1494 provides no implied private right of action?

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA--25-0007

Jamie Clem v. Pinal County/Teeple

CV-25-0313-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 06/23/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 05/05/2026 as to the following rephrased issues:

1.  In a civil case, during voir dire, may a trial court rehabilitate a prospective juror challenged for bias, prejudice, or loyalty to a party solely by asking whether the juror can be fair and impartial?

2.  Is the appearance of the denial of the right to an impartial jury as a result of seating a biased juror sufficient to require a new trial without a showing of prejudice?

3.  In a civil trial can a party question jurors about a fellow juror’s favorable comments about a party? 

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV--24-0305

McMahan v. Grasshopper

CV-25-0287-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 06/15/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 05/05/2026 as to this issue:

Can a party waive the right to have a court vacate a void order, which was entered against the party without proper service, before voluntarily appearing, and without the Court otherwise acquiring jurisdiction prior to the order?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA--25-0137

Oral Argument to be held on 06/15/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 05/05/2026 as to these issues:

1. Did the court of appeals err by holding that the trial court abused its discretion by finding there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial, where the defense conceded that there was no cure short of a mistrial and the court of appeals had only a partial trial record?

2. Did the court of appeals err by creating a new “mistrial with prejudice” framework in Arizona?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA--25-0153 & 1CA-SA-25-0154 (Consolidated)

Oral Argument held on 05/28/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 03/26/2026 as to following issues:  

1. Are spouses required to join as parties in their divorce case all entities holding nominal title to community real property before they can record a valid lis pendens and prevent unlawful dissipation of the estate?

2. Does the family court lack power to award community property to either spouse if such property titled is in the name of an alter-ego entity and the entity is not joined as a party to the dissolution proceeding?

3. Even if Petitioner’s lis pendens was defective due to failure to join Westbrook Rental, LLC as a party to the dissolution proceeding, does it necessarily follow that his lis pendens was “groundless,” such that he is responsible for Westbrook’s attorney fees?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV--24-0146

Oral Argument held on 05/28/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 03/26/2026 as to the following issues:  

1.  Whether the court of appeals correctly held that the Arizona Department of Economic Security lacked standing to defend the Appeals Board’s decision?

2. Under A.R.S. § 12-348(H)(1), attorneys’ fees are disallowed in an “action arising from a proceeding … in which the role of this state … was to determine the eligibility or entitlement of an individual to a monetary benefit or its equivalent.”  Did the court of appeals err in awarding attorneys’ fees when Williams’ [unemployment insurance]  appeal “arise[s] from” a proceeding in which DES’s role “was to determine [her] eligibility” for UI benefits?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-UB--23-0369

Oral Argument held on 05/21/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 03/27/2026 as to these issues: 

1. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 19.4 mandates that a judge who substitutes in for a judge who becomes incapacitated while “hearing or trying a criminal proceeding” must order a new trial or proceeding if he or she “believes after reviewing the record that continuing the proceeding would be unduly prejudicial.” Did the court of appeals majority err by holding this rule requires sua sponte review of trial transcripts by a substitute sentencing judge?

2. If Rule 19.4 applies here, what is the appropriate standard of review generally, and what is the appropriate standard of review in this case, when Howard did not rely on Rule 19.4 in [Howard’s] opening brief in the court of appeals, and the application of Rule 19.4 was first raised by the court of appeals, not any party?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CR--22-0494

Oral Argument held on 05/21/2026

Case Summary 

On 03/03/2026 the Court accepted this question certified to the Arizona Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?

Oral Argument held on 04/21/2026 (**Out of Town OA- Page High School**)

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 03/03/2026 

as to the following issues:

I.    “Do technical or regulatory violations of Arizona’s bingo statutes remove “regulated gambling” from the statutory exemption in A.R.S. § 13-3303(C), thereby subjecting charitable bingo operations to felony-level criminal prosecutions?” 

II.    “Can the theoretical capability of a bingo device to be used for unregulated play support felony-level charges under Title 13 rather than misdemeanor level charges under Title 5?” 

III.    “Did the COA disregard the statutory text, legislative intent, due process principles, and the rule of lenity to conclude that the bingo-related conduct alleged is prosecutable under A.R.S. § 13-3303?”

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case Nos. 1CA-CR-24-0229, 1CA-CR-24-0230, 1CA-CR-24-0239  

Oral Argument held on 04/21/2026 (**Out of Town OA- Page High School**)

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 02/11/2026

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-22-0746

Oral Argument held on 04/14/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 03/03/2026 

as to the following issue:

In family court actions, the appealability of an order is governed by Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 78, which states that “[a] judgment as to all claims, issues, and parties is not appealable unless the judgment recites that no further matters remain pending, and that the judgment is entered under Rule 78(c).” Here, the trial court’s order denying Husband’s Motion to Alter or Amend contained additional findings and did not include finality language under Rule 78. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the time limit for filing a notice of appeal from that order began on the date it was entered, as opposed to the date it was certified as final under Rule 78?

Oral Argument held on 03/24/2026 (** Out of Town OA- ASU**)

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 01/06/2026, as to the following rephrased issue:  

“Did the court of appeals err in finding that the phrase ‘[a]ny other person who has responsibility for the care . . . of the minor’ as used in A.R.S. § 13-3620(A)(5) 'is most reasonably interpreted as applying to individuals not already mentioned [in the statute] who also have a relationship to the minor that has placed them in a position of responsibility'?"

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-23-0272

Oral Argument held on 03/24/2026 (** Out of Town ASU**)

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 01/06/2026

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-23-0293

Oral Argument held on 03/10/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 01/06/2026 as to the following issue only:  

“Did the court of appeals err in holding that under A.R.S. § 42-13101, the valuation method that applies to ‘land used for agricultural purposes’ does not apply exclusively to the land, but also to improvements on the land such as permanent crops (orchard trees or vines)?"

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-TX-24-0002

Oral Argument held on 03/10/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 01/06/2026 as to the following issues:  

1.   “What Arizona constitutional standard applies to economic liberty claims?”

2.   “Are Plaintiffs not ‘similarly situated’ to a statutorily benefitted group just because the statute excludes them?”

3.   “Does the restriction of Plaintiffs’ advertising implicate free speech rights?”

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-23-0240

Oral Argument held on 02/26/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 11/25/2025

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-24-0245-FC

Oral Argument held on 02/26/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 11/25/2025 as to the following rephrased issues:

1. In this case of first impression for this Court, what are the standards for determining the clergy-penitent privilege under A.R.S. § 13-4062(3)?

2. Does the privilege apply here? 

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA-23-0182

Oral Argument held on 02/19/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 01/06/2026

Oral Argument held on  02/19/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 11/04/2025 as to the following rephrased issue:  

Whether a jury trial in superior court is required under the Arizona Constitution, article II, § 23, in cases initiated by the Arizona Corporation Commission where a jury demand is made by a Commission enforcement target.

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA-25-0016

Oral Argument held on 01/20/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 11/04/2025

as to Issue 1 only

Opinion  from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-23-0139

Oral Argument held on 01/20/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 11/04/2025

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-24-0602-FC

Oral Argument held on 01/15/2026

Case Summay 

Petition for Review granted on 11/04/2025

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-24-0291

Oral Argument held on 01/15/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 11/04/2025

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CR-23-0175

Oral Argument held on 01/13/2026

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 11/04/2025

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case Nos. 2CA-JV-24-0093 and 2CA-JV-24-0094 (Consolidated)

Oral Argument held on 01/13/2026

Case Summary 

Petition for Special Action granted on 11/04/2025

Oral Argument held on 12/16/2025

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 10/08/2025 

as to the following rephrased issues:

1.   Whether the superior court abused its discretion by ruling that Lynch v. Arizona (“Lynch II”), 578 U.S. 613 (2016), is a significant change in the law as defined in Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g) despite this Court’s ruling in State v. Cruz (“Cruz II”), 251 Ariz. 203 (2021).

      In addressing this rephrased issue, the parties should address whether Cruz v. Arizona (“Cruz III”), 598 U.S. 17 (2023), does any more than find that this Court’s holding in Cruz II was not constitutionally adequate to support foreclosure of federal review of Cruz’s Simmons/Lynch claim.

2.   Regardless of the conclusion as to Issue 1, presuming that Lynch II is a significant change in the law, and therefore Rose’s Simmons claim is not precluded, whether Rose can establish that a Simmons instruction would probably overturn his death sentence.

3.   Regardless of the conclusion as to the prior issues, presuming that Simmons error is cognizable under Rule 32.1(a)—apart from a claim of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel—whether any Simmons error in Rose’s penalty phase was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  
 

Oral Argument held on 12/16/2025

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 10/10/2025 as to the following rephrased issue:

Did the court of appeals misapply A.R.S. § 12-2604 and this Court’s decision in Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, 231 Ariz. 379 (2013), in concluding that Plaintiff's medical malpractice expert was unqualified to provide expert testimony?

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA-24-0270

Oral Argument held on 11/24/2025

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 09/09/2025

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-24-0176

Oral Argument held on 11/24/2025

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 09/09/2025 as to issues 1, 2 and 4 only.  Issue 2 is rephrased as follows:  

Is a public entity’s denial of access to a public record a question of law reviewed de novo?

Opinion  from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-24-0073

Oral Argument held on 10/28/2025  (** Out of Town OA- Holbrook High School, Holbrook**)

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 08/20/2025

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-24-0309

Oral Argument held on 10/28/2025  (** Out of Town OA- Holbrook High School, Holbrook**)

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 05/06/2025 as to the following rephrased issue: 

Under A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H), do multiple insured individuals who jointly purchase multiple policies using community or shared funds constitute “one insured”? 

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-23-0564

Oral Argument held on 10/14/2025 (** Out of Town OA- UofA, Tucson**)

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 08/19/2025

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-23-0723

Oral Argument held on 10/14/2025 (** Out of Town OA- UofA, Tucson**)

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 08/19/2025 as to Issues 1 and 2 in the Petition for Review. 

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CV-24-0241

Oral Argument held on 10/09/2025

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 08/20/2025 

as to Issues 1-4 and the following additional issue:

Should the Court decide that Accomazzo v. Kemp, 234 Ariz. 169 (App. 2014), is wrongly decided, should the Court’s decision be applied prospectively only?

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-SA-24-0252 

Oral Argument held on 09/18/2025

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 05/06/2025 as to the following rephrashed issues: 

1.   Under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 48(I) and 80(a)(6), can a claim for wrongful institution of civil proceedings be predicated, in whole or in part, on the filing of a bar charge or the statements therein?

2.  Under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 55 and 78, when does a civil proceeding commence?

Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-24-0298

Oral Argument held on 09/11/2025

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 05/06/2025 as to the following rephrased issues: 

1.  Is the Voters’ Right to Know Act facially unconstitutional under the Ariz. Constitution?

2.  If not, did the court of appeals properly dismiss Plaintiffs-Appellants’ as-applied challenge?
 

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-24-0272 

Oral Argument held on 06/10/2025

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 04/01/2025 as to the following rephrased issue:

 What effect, if any, does A.R.S. § 12-821 have on the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi in the context of a contract action between two public entities?

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-23-0744

Oral Argument held on 05/13/2025

Case Summary 

Petition for Review granted on 03/04/2025 as to issues number one and four only.

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2CA-CR-23-0010

Oral Argument held on 04/22/2025

Case Summary

Petition for Review granted on 03/04/2025

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1CA-CV-23-0375

Oral Argument held on 12/10/2024

Case Summary