| | 3/30/2020 |
| CV-19-0149-PR | STEVEN SHOLEM v HONS. GASS/CONTES/MELISSA LANGEVIN | OPINION |
| | 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-PR | SANDRA 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-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEY | OPINION |
| | 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-PR | WALTER ANSLEY et al v BANNER HEALTH NETWORK et al | OPINION |
| | 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-CQ | ABELARDO CHAPARRO v DAVID C SHINN | OPINION |
| | 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-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v DAVID LEE GREEN | OPINION |
| | 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-PR | HWAL'BAY BA J ENTERPRISES INC v HON. JANTZEN/FOX | OPINION |
| | 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-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v RICHARD ALLEN REED | OPINION |
| | 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-PR | JOHN TERRELL v RUBY TORRES | OPINION |
| | 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.
|
|