Search Opinions/Memo Decs


Search filter ON - 9 records found    Clear search filter
Date Range: 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Search Decisions

3/30/2020   CV-19-0149-PRSTEVEN SHOLEM v HONS. GASS/CONTES/MELISSA LANGEVINOPINION
 Andrew W. Gould, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur

3/11/2020   CV-19-0057-PRSANDRA R./SERGIO C. v DCS/M.R./F.M./J.M.OPINION
 John R. Lopez, IV, Author; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur in the Result

 

 

Amended on 03/11/2020.

3/10/2020   CR-15-0411-APSTATE OF ARIZONA v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEYOPINION
 John R. Lopez, IV, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; John Pelander, Concur

 

Amended on 03/16/2020


Constitutionality Decision

Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-751(F)(13), which provides as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that “[t]he offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification”,  against the challenge that it is overly vague and provides inadequate guidance, in light of further narrowing instructions.

 

Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-751(F)(6) (renumbered A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(4)), which provides as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that "the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner", against the challenge that it is overly vague and provides inadequate guidance, in light of further narrowing instructions, and that any guidance cannot be constitutionally applied by a jury, rather than a judge.

 

Affirming the holding of State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), that the Arizona death penalty statutory scheme sufficiently narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty in accordance with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

 

Upholding the constitutionality of A.RS. § 13-752(G), which governs the presentation of mitigation evidence at the penalty phase in a capital case, against the challenge that it is unconstitutional because it fails to provide a process to allow jurors to consider mitigating evidence when a defendant waives his right to present such evidence.

3/9/2020   CV-19-0077-PRWALTER ANSLEY et al v BANNER HEALTH NETWORK et alOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; John Pelander, Concur

 Constitutionality Decision

Holding A.R.S. §§ 33-931(A) and 36-2903.01(G)(4) preempted to the extent hospitals utilize them against third-party tortfeasors to “balance bill” patients to recover costs in excess of Medicaid reimbursements. When used for this purpose, the statutes conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(C) and 42 C.F.R. § 447.15. Consequently, they are unconstitutional as applied under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2.

3/5/2020   CV-19-0205-CQABELARDO CHAPARRO v DAVID C SHINNOPINION
 James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; John Pelander, Concur

3/4/2020   CR-18-0537-PRSTATE OF ARIZONA v DAVID LEE GREENOPINION
 William Montgomery, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur

2/25/2020   CV-19-0123-PRHWAL'BAY BA J ENTERPRISES INC v HON. JANTZEN/FOXOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur

1/24/2020   CR-19-0059-PRSTATE OF ARIZONA v RICHARD ALLEN REEDOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur

 

Amended on 01/24/2020.


Constitutionality Decision

Holding part of A.R.S. § 13-106(A), which requires an appellate court to dismiss a pending appeal when a convicted defendant dies, unconstitutional as beyond the legislature’s authority to enact.  Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-106(B), which prohibits abatement of a defendant’s conviction and sentence when the defendant dies pending appeal or post-conviction relief proceedings. 

1/23/2020   CV-19-0106-PRJOHN TERRELL v RUBY TORRESOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur

 

 

Amended on 01/24/2020

Amended per ASC Order filed February 21, 2020 

 

PLEASE NOTE: On February 21, 2020 an Order was filed  amending the following: On page 9, paragraph 26:

We vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, except paragraph 57-60, and affirm the family court’s order directing donation of the embryos.