Search Opinions/Memo Decs


Search filter ON - 38 records found    Clear search filter
Date Range: 1/1/2021 to 12/31/2021
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Search Decisions

1234
9/20/2021   CR-20-0306-PRBETH FAY v HON. FOX/STATE/JORDAN HANSONOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Sean Brearcliffe, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Dissent; Robert M. Brutinel, Dissent

9/2/2021   CV-20-0322-PRDAVID WELCH v COCHISE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et alOPINION
 Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Cynthia J. Bailey, Concur

9/1/2021   CV-20-0120-PRCVS PHARMACY et al v HON. BOSTWICK/TUCSON MEDICALOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; John Pelander, Concur

8/25/2021   CV-20-0030-PRAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF AZ v DCSOPINION
 James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur

8/19/2021   CV-21-0058-T/APKAREN FANN et al v STATE OF ARIZONA et alOPINION
 Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Paul J. McMurdie, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur in part; Dissent in part

 Constitutionality Decision

The Court holds A.R.S. § 15-1285 unconstitutional as it incorrectly characterizes Prop. 208 revenues for purposes of art. 9, § 21 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court holds § 15-1281(D) unconstitutional to the extent it mandates expenditure of Prop. 208 revenues in excess of the expenditure limitations of art. 9, § 21 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court additionally holds that Prop. 208 does not violate art. 9, § 22 of the Arizona constitution because art. 9, § 22 does not apply to voter initiatives. The bicameralism, presentment, and supermajority requirements found therein are thus inapplicable to Prop. 208.

8/19/2021   CV-20-0082-CQMARCIE A REDGRAVE v DOUG DUCEY et alOPINION
 Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur

8/17/2021   CV-20-0058-PRCONCETTA RIZZIO v SURPASS SENIOR LIVING LLC et alOPINION
 William Montgomery, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur

8/16/2021   CR-20-0383-PRSTATE OF ARIZONA v RONALD BRUCE BIGGEROPINION
 John R. Lopez, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Peter B. Swann, Concur

 Constitutionality Decision

 

The Court holds A.R.S. § 13-4234(G) unconstitutional as applied to the extent it conflicts with, and nullifies, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.4(D)’s “no fault” exception to PCR filing time limits.

8/6/2021   CV-20-0214-PRDIANNAH DINSMOOR v CITY OF PHOENIX et alOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; John Pelander, Concur

8/5/2021   CV-20-0086-PRSPECIALTY COMPANIES GROUP et al v MERITAGE HOMESOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur

1234