Rule Petitions Denied by the Court



RPEA 9.1

The proposed rule would have permitted a change of judge as a matter of right in an eviction action in a Justice Court.


Civil 26(b)(4)(C)

This rule petition was a response to Sanchez v. Gama, 1 CA-SA 13-0072 (Div. 1, Aug. 20, 2013).  The proposed revision would have specified that a witness who provided medical care to a party is an expert, and as such, the witness would be entitled to a reasonable fee for his or her testimony.


Civil 23

The proposed rule amendment would have required distribution to the Arizona Bar Foundation of at least 50% of “residual funds” in a class action.  These funds would have been used to provide legal services and access to justice for low-income residents of Arizona.


Criminal 23.5

To protect jurors from contact after the case has concluded, the Maricopa County Attorney had proposed the adoption of a new rule of criminal procedure that would prohibit any party from contacting jurors outside a courthouse after a case concluded, absent a showing of good cause and with the permission of the court.


Criminal 32.4

This petition addressed Stout v Mohave County, 233 Ariz. 275, 311 P.3d 1088 (October 2013), which held that a defendant filing an "of-right" petition for post-conviction relief was entitled to "transcripts" pursuant to Criminal Rule 32.4(d), and that "transcripts did not include "electronic recordings." This proposed amendment would have allowed the court to provide electronic recordings, rather than written transcripts, in post-conviction relief proceedings.