Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the Pinal County Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and the Penal County Board of Supervisors (Board) acted unlawfully when they adopted a two-tiered retail transaction privilege tax (TPT) on tangible personal property as part of a transportation excise tax.At issue was (1) Pinal County's adoption of Proposition 416, a regional transportation plan, and Proposition 417, a transportation excise tax; and (2) a two-tiered TPT structure whereby the first $10,000 of any single item was taxed at one rate and any amount in excess was taxed at a rate of zero percent adopted as part of a transportation excise tax in Pinal County. The Supreme Court held (1) Pinal County complied with state law in adopting the transportation excise tax; but (2) the County's two-tiered retail transaction privilege tax was invalid. View "Vangilder v. Arizona Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court in this parental rights termination case, holding that the juvenile court applied the incorrect definition of "normal home" in Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-533(B) in terminating the parental interest of Father to his child.The juvenile court found H.B. and her half-siblings dependent as to Mother and their respective fathers. As to Father, the court found that DCS had proved termination pursuant to the length-of-sentence ground listed 8-533(B)(4) and that termination was in H.B.'s best interests. Specifically, the court concluded that Father's incarceration had and would continue to deprive H.B. of a normal home for a period of years, thus demonstrating the legnth-of-sentence ground for termination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the juvenile court erred by not considering whether a permanent guardianship could provide H.B. with a "normal home" while Father maintained his parental rights; and (2) remand was necessary for consideration of Father's past and ongoing efforts to parent H.B. from prison and their impact on H.B.'s interest in a stable home life in the court's best interests analysis. View "Timothy B. v. Department of Child Safety" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (the Agency) has not established a clear policy objective concerning automatic emergency breaking (AEB) technology that preempts state tort law claims based on an auto manufacturer's alleged failure to install AEB.Plaintiff sued Chrysler alleging negligence, defective product design, defective product warning, and wrongful death. Chrysler moved to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting that it was preempted given the Agency's objectives regarding the development and deployment of AEB technology. The trial court granted Chrysler's motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Agency did not intend to preempt tort claims based on the absence of AEB. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order, holding (1) the Agency has neither conveyed an authoritative statement establishing manufacturer choice as a significant federal policy objective nor made explicit a view that AEB should not be regulated; and (2) therefore, the Agency has not established a policy objective that actually conflicts with the claims at issue. View "Varela v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

In this criminal case concerning a defendant who asserted the attorney-client privilege the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court ruling that all of the defendant's communications with his mitigation specialist, Anna Nelson, and the defense team's paralegal, Nicole Erich, were confidential, privileged, and non-discoverable, holding that there was no error.Defendant was in jail awaiting trial on charges of, among other things, first degree murder. Defendant used the jail's electronic tablets, including its text messaging capabilities, to communicate with members of the defense team. The State issued and served a criminal subpoena duces tecum on the jail requesting Defendant's texts to dispute his claimed intellectual disability. The State filed a motion to determine non-privileged status of communications with the trial court, arguing that Defendant's texts with the defense team were not privileged. The court ruled in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's ruling, holding the remand was required pursuant to Clements v. Bernini ex rel. County of Pima, 249 Ariz. 434 (2020), and the reasoning in this opinion. View "State ex rel. Adel v. Honorable Adleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking an award of attorney fees and costs in a lawsuit filed by a married plaintiff does not need to join the plaintiff's spouse to later execute a judgment for fees and costs against the plaintiff's community assets.The trial court entered judgment judgment for Shamrock Materials, LLC and an LLC member and her husband (collectively, Shamrock) in this action brought by Kristi Lattin, "a married woman dealing with her own separate property." The court further awarded Shamrock attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party. Shamrock sought to garnish a bank account jointly owned by Lattin and her husband, Robert DeRuiter, a non-party. The trial court quashed Shamrock's garnishment on Wells Fargo Bank to pay funds held in the joint bank account because the judgment was not entered against DeRuiter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-215(D) did not require Shamrock to join DeRuiter in the case to execute its judgment for attorney fees and costs against community assets. View "Lattin v. Shamrock Materials LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying summary judgment for Defendant and remanded this matter to the trial court to grant summary judgment for Defendant, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on her defamation claim.This defamation action arose from a political advertisement directed at an opposing candidate, in which the third-party plaintiff was unnamed, the alleged defamation was not expressed but implied, and the asserted implication was not one that a reasonable listener would likely draw. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the advertisement made truthful claims about matters of public concern and that Defendant did not make the statements with actual malice. The superior court denied the summary judgment motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, holding that the First Amendment does not tolerate a defamation action under the facts presented in this case. View "Rogers v. Honorable Mroz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the restitution order of the trial court to the extent that it ordered payment of C.C.'s attorney fees, holding that most of C.C.'s fees were not recoverable as criminal restitution.Defendant was convicted of one count of voyeurism for using a mirror to look beneath the door of a bathroom being occupied by C.C. The trial court awarded C.C. restitution that included attorney fees she had incurred in retaining an attorney to represent her in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held (1) a victim's attorney fees are recoverable as criminal restitution but only when an attorney is reasonably necessary to remedy the harm caused by the criminal conduct; and (2) because the vast majority of the attorney fees sought by C.C. did not flow directly from Defendant's criminal conduct, those fees were indirect, consequential damages, and therefore, the court erred by awarding those fees as restitution. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a recorded judgment lien attaches to homestead property where the judgment debtor has equity in excess of the amount exempt under Arizona law.Pacific Western Bank (PWB) obtained a California judgment against Todd McLauchlan that was domesticated and recorded in Arizona. McLauchlan later filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition identifying an ownership interest in a residence and claiming the statutory homestead exemption in the residence. PWB filed a proof of claim, $552,497 of which was secured by the recorded judgment lien. The remaining $115,985 was unsecured. After McLauchlan received his discharge he sold the residence and realized $56,852 in excess of the $150,000 homestead exemption. PWB filed a motion seeking a determination that McLauchlan's bankruptcy discharge did not affect its interest secured by its recorded judgment. At issue was whether, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-964(B), judgment liens attach to homestead property. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. View "In re McLauchlan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this arbitration dispute, holding that direct benefits estoppel cannot be invoked in a garnishment action to bind the judgment creditor to the terms of the contract because applying the doctrine in this context would contravene Arizona's statutory garnishment scheme.Specifically, the Court answered that in a garnishment action by a judgment creditor against the judgment debtor's insurer claiming that coverage is owed under an insurance policy where the judgment creditor is not proceeding on an assignment of rights, the insurer cannot invoke the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel to bind the judgment creditor to the terms of the insurance contract. View "Benson v. Casa De Capri Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied relief to Banner University Medical Center Tucson Campus, LLC and other Banner entities (collectively, Banner) which challenged the denial of its motion for summary judgment in this vicarious liability case, holding that the vicarious liability claim against Banner was not precluded.Doctors jointly employed by Banner provided treatment to Plaintiffs' fourteen-month-old son, who died. Plaintiffs brought medical malpractice claims against the doctors, a vicarious liability claim against Banner based on the doctors' conduct, and direct claims of breach of contract and fraud against Banner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the doctors because Plaintiffs failed to serve each of them with a notice of claim. Banner then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the trial court's dismissal of the doctors with prejudice served as an adjudication on the merits precluding any claim of vicarious liability against Banner. The court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because there was no final judgment on the merits, Plaintiffs' vicarious liability claim against Banner was not precluded. View "Banner University Medical Center Tucson Campus, LLC v. Honorable Richard Gordon" on Justia Law