HomeNews & Information > High Profile Cases
High Profile Cases

An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. Arizona’s judges must comply with the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.4, which states:

RULE 2.4. External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.


Comment

An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.
To provide timely, efficient access to court information through a centralized location, this page contains information and links related to election matters of high interest to the public that are before the Arizona Supreme Court, as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 123(g)(3).


Remote electronic access shall be conditioned upon the user's agreement to access the information only as instructed by the court, not to attempt any unauthorized access, and to consent to monitoring by the court of all use of the system. The court is not liable for inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the information.

This website does not limit the public’s right of access to records at a court facility. The information and documents available here should not be relied upon as an official record of action. For official records, please contact the Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court at (602) 452-3396.

Copies of documents filed with the Arizona Supreme Court are accessible below.

High Profile Cases at the Arizona Supreme Court
Last Updated Case Number Case Title Description
08/26/2021  CV-21-0185-PR Cyber Ninjas v Hon. Warner/PHX Newspapers et al   
09/7/2021 CV-21-0197-PR Karen Fann v Hon. Michael Kemp/American Oversight 
Senate President Karen Fann and others seek review of a Court of Appeals decision requiring that the Senate provide documents related to its audit of the November 2020 general election.
04/29/2021 CV-21-0102-SA Karen Fann, et al. v. Hon. Christopher Coury and AZ Democratic Party, et al. Senate President Karen Fann and others brought this special action in the Court after the trial court entered orders pertaining to the ballot audit. Petitioners moved for dismissal of this case after the temporary injunction expired and the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
04/16/2021 CV-21-0058-T/AP Karen Fann, et al. v. State of Arizona and Invest in Education Senate President Karen Fann and others appealed a trial court decision denying their request to enjoin Proposition 208, “Invest in Education.” The Court granted the petition to transfer and held oral argument on April 20, 2021.
04/06/2021 CR-87-0135-AP State v. Frank Jarvis Atwood In 1987, Atwood was convicted of the murder and kidnapping of an 8-year-old child and sentenced to death. The State of Arizona seeks a warrant of execution.
04/06/2021 CR-08-0025-AP State v. Clarence Wayne Dixon In 2008, Dixon was convicted of the 1978 murder of a college student and sentenced to death. The State of Arizona seeks a warrant of execution.
03/24/2021 CV-20-0335-T/AP Javier Aguila, et al. v. Doug Ducey, The Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”) and the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control Bar owners challenged the Governor’s executive orders closing bars and placing capacity restrictions on reopening. The Court dismissed the case as moot after the Governor issued Executive Order EO 2021-05.
01/06/2021 CV-20-0349-AP/EL Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey, et al. On December 7, 2020, Plaintiff Staci Burk sued state and county officials alleging that she had been denied the right to vote in the November, 3, 2020 general election. The Superior Court dismissed the suit, and this Court affirmed the dismissal. The United States Supreme Court denied Burk’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
12/21/2020 CV-20-0343-AP/EL Kelli Ward v. Constance Jackson et al., and Katie Hobbs Plaintiff/Contestant/Appellant Kelli Ward challenged the election of the Biden Presidential Electors. After the County completed its hand count of 5,000 early ballots and Election Day Ballots from two percent (2%) of the voting centers, the Biden Electors were certified as receiving 10,457 more votes than the Trump Electors. The trial court authorized a review of 1626 total ballots. After identifying nine errors, the trial court concluded that the review established that the results “99.45% accurate.” This Court affirmed the trial court decision and confirmed the election of the Biden Electors.

Additional Resources

Contact Us

To request official case records, please contact the Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court:

[email protected]
(602) 452-3396



Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Office of the Court
1501 W. Washington St., Suite 402
Phoenix, AZ 85007
For troubleshooting assistance,
contact [email protected]