Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Residents of the City of Page proposed an initiative to prevent the narrowing of a specific street within the city as part of a larger Streetscape Project aimed at economic development. The initiative sought to maintain the current size and number of lanes on Lake Powell Boulevard and prohibit the use of public or external funds to reduce its width. The City of Page rejected the initiative, deeming it non-legislative, and refused to place it on the ballot. Consequently, the Page Action Committee and individual plaintiffs filed a special action complaint in the superior court.The Superior Court in Coconino County found the initiative to be non-legislative in nature and ruled in favor of the City. The plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court applied a three-part test from Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa to determine whether the initiative was legislative or administrative. It concluded that the initiative was administrative because it only affected a specific portion of the road and sought to control the implementation of an already established policy.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the initiative was legislative in nature because it created a new public policy and provided the means for its implementation. The Court emphasized that the citizens' power to legislate is coextensive with that of their elected representatives and that the initiative proposed a law, not an administrative action. The decision of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter appropriate relief for the plaintiffs. View "ROUNDTREE v. PAGE" on Justia Law

In June 2021, a deputy of the Maricopa County Sheriff rear-ended the plaintiffs while driving a vehicle owned by Maricopa County. The plaintiffs filed a notice of claim with the clerk of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and subsequently sued the County, arguing it was vicariously liable for the deputy’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it lacked the requisite control over the deputy to be held vicariously liable. The Superior Court in Maricopa County agreed and granted the County’s motion to dismiss.The plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, arguing that the deputy is an employee of the County and thus the County should be liable for his negligence. The Court of Appeals held that the County was not vicariously liable because it lacked the necessary control over deputy county sheriffs. The court also noted that county sheriffs qualify as public entities for notice of claim purposes under Arizona law.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a county can be held vicariously liable for a deputy county sheriff’s negligence and whether the county is the proper public entity for notice of claim purposes. The Court held that a county does not control a deputy county sheriff when carrying out law enforcement duties and therefore cannot be vicariously liable for a deputy’s negligence. The Court further held that a sheriff in his official capacity is vicariously liable for any negligence or misconduct committed by a deputy engaged in law enforcement duties. Additionally, the Court clarified that a claimant may satisfy the notice of claim requirements by filing with the county sheriff’s office, which is responsible for the sheriff’s administrative functions. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the case and vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "Sanchez v. Maricopa County" on Justia Law

In this case, the father and mother of B.W. had a contentious relationship, and the father was involved in a criminal incident where he shot and killed a man. Following this incident, the father was advised by his criminal defense attorney not to contact the mother or B.W. to avoid jeopardizing his defense. The father was later charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy but was acquitted in December 2021. In March 2022, the father sought to establish his parental rights, and the mother filed for termination of his parental rights based on abandonment.The Superior Court in Maricopa County found that the father had abandoned B.W. by failing to maintain a normal parental relationship for over six months without just cause. The court rejected the father's argument that he had just cause for his inaction, noting that he did not take any legal steps to assert his parental rights. The court concluded that termination of the father's parental rights was in B.W.'s best interest. The father appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision, agreeing that the father did not demonstrate just cause for his failure to maintain a relationship with B.W. The court held that the father's reliance on his criminal defense attorney's advice did not excuse his inaction.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to clarify the meaning of "just cause" under A.R.S. § 8-531(1). The court held that "just cause" refers to a reasonable and justifiable reason for a parent's failure to maintain a normal parental relationship, based on good faith. The court reversed the juvenile court's termination order and remanded the case for reconsideration, instructing the lower court to apply the clarified definition of "just cause" in determining whether the father's actions were justified. The Court of Appeals' decision was vacated. View "In re Termination Parental Rights as to B.W." on Justia Law

In April 2021, David Browne visited Billy Jack’s Saloon and Grill in Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona. After leaving the bar, Browne, with a blood alcohol content nearly four times the legal limit, caused a multi-vehicle collision on State Route 69. Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta, Janette Dodge, and their two minor children, Elijah and Amelia, were injured in the crash. The plaintiffs alleged that the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (the Department) was negligent in failing to prevent Billy Jack’s from overserving its patrons.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona, the Town of Dewey-Humboldt, and Yavapai County. The Superior Court in Maricopa County dismissed the claims against all defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs’ notice of claim to the County and Town was insufficient and that the Department did not have a legal duty to protect the plaintiffs from the harm caused by Browne’s actions. The court dismissed the minor plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and the adult plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Department owed a statute-based duty of care to the plaintiffs. However, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Department did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court found that the statutes cited by the plaintiffs did not impose a mandatory duty on the Department to prevent the overserving of patrons. The Supreme Court vacated parts of the Court of Appeals' opinion and affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the adult plaintiffs’ claims against the State with prejudice. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the Town’s cross-appeal. View "SANCHEZ-RAVUELTA v YAVAPAI" on Justia Law

A police officer from the City of Mesa, while driving his patrol car, was involved in a multi-vehicle accident that injured a bicyclist, Philip Rogers. Rogers claimed the officer's negligent driving caused the accident and served notices of claim to the City of Mesa and the officer, offering to settle for "$1,000,000 or the applicable [insurance] policy limits, whichever are greater." Later, Rogers amended his notices to specify a settlement amount of $1,000,000.The Superior Court of Maricopa County denied the City’s motion to dismiss Rogers' complaint, which argued that the initial notices did not comply with Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01(A) because they did not state a specific settlement amount. The City then petitioned for special action review. The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s decision, directing it to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the notices of claim did not provide a specific amount for settlement as required by the statute.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case to determine if Rogers' notices of claim complied with § 12-821.01(A). The Court held that the settlement offer of "$1,000,000 or the applicable policy limits, whichever are greater" was insufficiently specific to meet the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that the statute requires a clear and precise settlement amount, which was not provided in Rogers' notices. Consequently, Rogers was barred from maintaining his lawsuit due to non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements.The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Rogers' claims. The Court also affirmed in part and vacated in part the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "CITY OF MESA v. RYAN" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the constitutionality of "release time" provisions in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Phoenix and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2384. These provisions allow certain employees to be released from their regular duties, while still being paid by the City, to perform union activities. The plaintiffs, who are non-union employees, argued that these provisions violate their free-speech, free-association, and right-to-work rights, as well as the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the Union, finding that the release time provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights because the City, not the employees, paid for the release time. The court also found that the provisions did not violate the Gift Clause, as they served a public purpose and were supported by adequate consideration. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' rights and were supported by adequate consideration.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the release time provisions do not violate the free-speech, free-association, or right-to-work rights of the plaintiffs because the City pays for the release time. However, the Court found that the provisions violate the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Court determined that the release time provisions do not provide adequate consideration to the City, as the benefits to the City are negligible compared to the substantial costs. Consequently, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion, reversed the Superior Court's decision, and remanded the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the Gift Clause claim. View "GILMORE v. GALLEGO" on Justia Law

The case involves the San Carlos Apache Tribe's challenge to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's (ADEQ) issuance of a 2017 Permit Renewal to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC (Resolution) for the discharge of water from a copper mine. The Tribe argued that the construction of a new mine shaft (Shaft 10) and other new features at the mine constituted a "new source" under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which would subject the mine to more stringent regulations.Previously, an administrative law judge (ALJ) had determined that ADEQ should have analyzed whether Shaft 10 and the other new features were a "new source" under the CWA before issuing the permit. The Arizona Water Quality Appeals Board remanded the matter to ADEQ, which concluded that Shaft 10 and the new features were "existing sources" under the CWA. The Board affirmed ADEQ's issuance of the 2017 Permit Renewal. The Tribe appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Board's decision. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Shaft 10 was a "new source" under the CWA.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona disagreed with the court of appeals. The court applied a three-step test to determine whether a construction is a "new source" under the CWA. The court found that Shaft 10 was not a "new source" under the CWA because it was integrated with existing infrastructure at the mine and engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source. The court also found that Shaft 10 did not have a new source performance standard "independently applicable" to it. Therefore, the court concluded that ADEQ acted within its discretion by issuing the 2017 Permit Renewal to Resolution. The court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the superior court's decision. View "SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE v STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between investigative journalist Amy Silverman and the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES). Silverman requested access to records maintained by the Adult Protective Services (APS), a program within ADES, for her research on issues affecting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. ADES denied her request, citing a state law that generally shields APS records from public inspection, except for certain exceptions, including one for "bona fide research." Silverman sued ADES, arguing that her journalistic activities qualified as "bona fide research."The Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled in favor of Silverman, finding that her journalistic activities qualified as "bona fide research" and ordered ADES to produce the requested documents after redacting personally identifying information. ADES appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The Court of Appeals concluded that "research" under the exception must be conducted for "educational, administrative, or scientific purposes" and that ADES still has discretion whether to disclose APS records.Both parties were dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' decision and filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. The Supreme Court concluded that "bona fide research" under the relevant statute occurs when the researcher engages in a good faith and genuine study to acquire more knowledge, discover new facts, or test new ideas concerning reporting or stopping the abuse, exploitation, or neglect of vulnerable adults. The court also held that anyone, including journalists, can qualify under the bona fide research exception. However, the court found that ADES has discretion whether, and on what conditions, to release APS records for bona fide research. The court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion, affirmed the Superior Court's judgment insofar as it denied ADES's motion to dismiss, but reversed the judgment for Silverman and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "SILVERMAN v ADES" 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