|
| | 6/6/2023 |
| CR-21-0329-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v NICOLAS LUVIANO | OPINION |
| | James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 5/3/2023 |
| CV-22-0187-PR | SHEA et al v MARICOPA et al | OPINION |
| | John R. Lopez, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur; Clint Bolick, Dissent
|
| | |
|
| | 4/28/2023 |
| CV-21-0292-PR | JACOB LAURENCE et al v SALT RIVER PROJECT et al | OPINION |
| | Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; John R. Lopez, Dissent; James P. Beene, Dissent; Kathryn H. King, Dissent
|
| | |
|
| | 4/19/2023 |
| CV-21-0277-PR | ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX v JORGE OTHON AND SPOUSE | OPINION |
| | Kathryn H. King, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 4/14/2023 |
| CV-21-0242-PR | HARRIS/IHEARTMEDIA v HON. RANDALL WARNER/MCCARTHY | OPINION |
| | William Montgomery, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 4/14/2023 |
| CR-21-0082-PC | STATE OF ARIZONA v BEAU JOHN GREENE | OPINION |
| | William Montgomery, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 4/3/2023 |
| CR-21-0398-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v BOBBY CHARLES PURCELL | OPINION |
| | Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 3/24/2023 |
| CV-21-0174-SA | STATE v HONS. BREARCLIFFE/VASQUEZ et al | OPINION |
| | James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | Constitutionality Decision
A.R.S. § 13-4033(C) provides that a defendant may not appeal if the defendant is absent for more than 90 days after conviction and cannot show his or her absence was involuntary. This Opinion holds § 13-4033(C) constitutional because it does not usurp this Court’s authority over procedural rulemaking under article 6, section 5(5) of the Arizona Constitution. |
|
| | 3/2/2023 |
| CV-22-0041-PR | LEGACY FOUNDATION ACTION v CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTION | OPINION |
| | Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 3/2/2023 |
| CV-22-0071-CQ | EVA CORNELL v DESERT FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION et al | OPINION |
| | John R. Lopez, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | |
|
|