Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Tamira Durand, who was indicted for several fraud-related offenses, including illegally obtaining a credit card in the name of Scott Blum, a prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), the agency responsible for prosecuting Durand. Durand argued that her due process rights would be violated if she was prosecuted by an agency with a conflict of interest, given that Blum, one of the victims in her case, was a prosecutor with MCAO. The trial court granted Durand’s motion, disqualifying MCAO from the case. The State appealed this decision.The trial court's decision to disqualify MCAO was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which accepted jurisdiction but denied relief. The State then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed the trial court's decision, stating that the trial court had erred by not considering the Gomez factors, a set of considerations established in a previous case, Gomez v. Superior Court, when deciding whether to disqualify MCAO. The court held that the trial court should have considered these factors, which include whether the motion is being made for the purposes of harassing the defendant, whether the party bringing the motion will be damaged in some way if the motion is not granted, whether there are any alternative solutions, and whether the possibility of public suspicion will outweigh any benefits that might accrue due to continued representation. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, with instructions to apply the Gomez factors and consider Durand’s due process rights. View "State ex rel Mitchell v. Palmer" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over insurance coverage following a fatal jet ski accident. The owner of A.C. Watercraft Rental, Sayed Mohammed, had sought liability insurance for all his business-owned watercraft through Farm Bureau Property and Casualty Insurance Company, which connected him with Great Divide Insurance Company. However, a Yamaha watercraft involved in a fatal accident was not listed in the policy schedule. Following the accident, Mohammed filed a claim with Great Divide for defense and indemnification, which was denied due to the jet ski not being listed in the policy. Subsequently, the deceased's father, Garbis Satamian, sued A.C. Watercraft, which had to bear its own defense costs.The Superior Court in Maricopa County dismissed Satamian's claims against Great Divide, Farm Bureau, and Risk Placement Services (RPS) on the grounds of statute of limitations. The court found that A.C. Watercraft learned of the negligent procurement of insurance when Great Divide denied coverage in January 2016, and that it “sustained injury in May 2017, when [A.C. Watercraft] incurred attorneys’ fees and costs defending itself.” The court ruled that both the negligent procurement of insurance claim and the promissory estoppel claim were time-barred because each accrued no later than May 2017.Satamian appealed the dismissal, arguing that the discovery rule should have tolled the statute of limitations and that the claims could not have accrued until his underlying action against A.C. Watercraft was final and non-appealable. The Court of Appeals rejected Satamian’s arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the negligent procurement of insurance and promissory estoppel claims accrued when an insured incurs its own litigation costs for defense against a claim due to an insurer’s negligent failure to obtain insurance coverage. The court found that A.C. Watercraft knew or should have known both the “who” and the “what” of the negligent procurement cause of action by May 2017, and expired by May 2019. The promissory estoppel claim began to accrue by May 2017, and expired by May 2020. Because Satamian filed this lawsuit in June 2021, both claims were time-barred. View "Satamian v. Great Divide Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona considered whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted A.R.S. § 13-3603 by enacting the abortion statutes in Title 36, specifically A.R.S. § 36-2322, which prohibits physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation. The case arose from a motion for relief under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)–(6), seeking to set aside the permanent injunction against § 13-3603 imposed in 1973 following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.Previously, the trial court granted the motion, vacating the judgment in its entirety to allow full enforcement of § 13-3603. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that licensed physicians who perform abortions in compliance with Title 36 are not subject to prosecution under § 13-3603.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that § 36-2322 does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts § 13-3603. The court concluded that absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because § 36-2322 does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting § 13-3603’s operation. Accordingly, § 13-3603 is now enforceable. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment vacating the injunction of § 13-3603, vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and stay of enforcement of § 13-3603, and remanded to the trial court for potential consideration of the remaining constitutional challenges to §13-3603 alleged in Planned Parenthood’s complaint for declaratory relief. View "Planned Parenthood v. Mayes" on Justia Law

In Arizona, condominium unit owners Jie Cao and Haining Xia challenged the forced sale of their unit by their condominium association (the “Association”) following the dissolution of the condominium. The Association, which had been given power to sell under the Arizona Condominium Act, sold the unit to PFP Dorsey Investments, a company that had previously acquired the majority of units in the condominium.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that the Arizona Condominium Act, which authorized the sale, did not violate the eminent domain provision of the Arizona Constitution. The court stated that the Act was incorporated into the condominium declaration, to which the owners had agreed. However, the court also held that in these circumstances, the Act required the sale of all property, rather than individual units as occurred in this case.The court noted that the Association's power to sell derived from the condominium declaration that all unit owners had signed. Thus, the Act didn't effect a taking of the owners' property. As such, the forced sale of the owners’ unit alone rather than as part of a sale of all common elements and units of the condominium was impermissible under the Act.The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also granted the owners reasonable attorney fees for amounts expended to enforce the Declaration, excluding those attributable to the unsuccessful eminent domain claims. View "CAO v PFP DORSEY" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arizona was asked to clarify whether Proposition 209, a voter initiative, repealed or affected the validity of a particular portion of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11)). The Court held that Proposition 209 neither expressly nor implicitly repealed A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11), which was enacted by the Arizona legislature after the drafting of Proposition 209 but before it was voted on.The case arose when Erica Riggins filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed an exemption under A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11), which was an exemption for certain types of federal and state tax credits. The Chapter 7 Trustee objected, arguing that Proposition 209, which amended a number of debt collection statutes and was passed by voters after the enactment of A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11), repealed the tax credit exemption.Upon review, the Court found that the voters did not expressly repeal A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11) by passing Proposition 209, as the proposition did not contain any language suggesting such a repeal. The Court also found that Proposition 209 did not implicitly repeal A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11) because the two did not conflict with each other. Both sought to enhance debtor protections, with Proposition 209 increasing the value of certain exemptions while A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11) added a new exemption for tax credits. As such, the Court declared A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11) to be still operative. View "In re: RIGGINS" on Justia Law

In this case, Steven and Mary Drummond, who resided in their 2017 Tiffin Allegro motor home, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed that their motor home was subject to the homestead exemption as a "mobile home" under Arizona law. The trustee objected, arguing that the Drummonds' motor home was not a mobile home under Arizona law. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona certified the question to the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona: “Whether a motor home in which a person over 18 years of age resides qualifies as a mobile home for the purpose of claiming an Arizona homestead exemption pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1101(A)(3).” The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that a motor home does not qualify for an exemption under A.R.S. § 33-1101(A)(3). The court reasoned that the statutory context of A.R.S. § 33-1101(A)(3) suggests that a "mobile home" under the statute describes a dwelling that is not intended to be moved once placed and physically attached to property. Thus, a "motor home" is not a "mobile home" under the homestead statute because it is readily movable and not anchored to land. View "In re: DRUMMOND" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona addressed two key issues related to the City of Scottsdale's decision not to award a license to operate competitive youth swimming programs at its public aquatic centers to Neptune Swimming Foundation, despite Neptune submitting a financially lucrative proposal through a request-for-proposal (RFP) process. Instead, the City chose to extend an existing license agreement with Scottsdale Aquatic Club (SAC), which had operated programs at the centers for over fifty years.The court first addressed whether a bid from a higher bidder should be considered when determining whether the City violated the Arizona Constitution's Gift Clause, which prohibits public entities from making donations or grants to any individual, association, or corporation. The court held that the higher bid in the RFP process was relevant, but not conclusive, in determining the fair market value of the license. A public entity does not necessarily violate the Gift Clause by choosing a less profitable arrangement. The court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of the City on this issue.The second issue was whether the City abused its discretion by failing to follow its own procurement process rules when it canceled the RFP and extended SAC's existing license agreement. The court found that there were material factual disputes about whether the City violated its own procurement process, which should have precluded summary judgment for the City on this issue. The court therefore reversed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of the City on this issue and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "NEPTUNE SWIMMING FOUNDATION v CITY OF SCOTTSDALE" on Justia Law

In this case, Pedro Barriga, an auto detailer at Precision Auto Body, LLC, quit his job due to a dispute with a coworker over the placement of a cooling fan and a perceived favoritism shown by his supervisor towards his coworker. Barriga then applied for unemployment benefits from the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”), claiming he quit due to an intolerable work situation. The ADES initially denied his benefits, but an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) reversed this decision. Precision Auto Body appealed to the ADES Appellate Services Administration Appeals Board, which reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that the working conditions at Precision did not rise to the level of an intolerable work situation.Barriga appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which vacated the Appeals Board’s decision, interpreting the factors in Arizona's regulation R6-3-50515(C)(2) as non-exhaustive and remanding the case back to the Appeals Board.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals, vacating its opinion and affirming the Appeals Board’s decision. The court held that while the factors in R6-3-50515(C)(2) meant to determine whether a workplace situation is intolerable are not exhaustive, Barriga failed to present evidence of any unbearable condition to establish an intolerable work situation. A dispute over a cooler placement, while unpleasant, was not intolerable. The court also found that Barriga did not adequately attempt to adjust his grievance before leaving his employment. The court also concluded that Barriga waived his claim that he quit because of a health condition by failing to sufficiently raise this issue at earlier stages of the proceedings. View "BARRIGA v ADES/PRECISION" on Justia Law

In 2011, Daniel Santillanes was convicted of a felony charge for facilitating the sale or transportation of marijuana in Arizona. In 2020, Arizona voters passed Proposition 207, which permitted the expungement of certain marijuana-related offenses. Following this, Santillanes sought to have his felony marijuana conviction expunged and his civil rights restored, including his right to possess a firearm. The trial court granted his request. The state then appealed the decision, questioning whether they had the right to do so.The main issue under consideration by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona was whether the state had the right to appeal the trial court's decision to expunge Santillanes's record and restore his civil rights. The court concluded that the state did indeed have the right to appeal this expungement order under A.R.S. § 13-4032(4). The court found that an order expunging records of a felony conviction affects the substantial rights of the state, and therefore, the state has the right to appeal such a decision.The Supreme Court vacated parts of the lower court's opinion and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, consistent with the remainder of the appellate court's opinion. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v SANTILLANES" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed a case involving Jose Agundez-Martinez, who was prosecuted as an adult for sexual assault and child molestation offenses he committed as a child between the ages of ten and twelve. The crimes came to light after Agundez-Martinez turned eighteen, and he was indicted at the age of twenty-three. Agundez-Martinez argued that the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over him once he turned eighteen, thereby depriving the superior court of its only mechanism for obtaining jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Arizona held that Proposition 102, known as the "Juvenile Justice Initiative," and the legislation implementing it did not prohibit the state from prosecuting adults for crimes committed when they were juveniles. The court stated that a crime is a crime, regardless of the age of the offender at the time of the offense, and the determination of whether it is adjudicated as a "delinquent act" or prosecuted as a criminal charge depends entirely on the status of the offender at the time the state initiates proceedings.Consequently, the court held that the superior court had jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence Agundez-Martinez for his criminal offenses since he was an adult when indicted. However, the court expressed concern about the lengthy adult prison sentences initially imposed for acts committed by a young child and urged the legislature to provide statutory directives for such situations. The case was remanded to the superior court for resentencing. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v AGUNDEZ-MARTINEZ" on Justia Law