Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for multiple counts of first degree murder and sentence of death, holding that no prejudicial error occurred in the proceedings below.After a ten-day trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of the 2012 first degree murders of Penelope Edwards and Troy Dunn under both premeditated and felony murder theories. After the penalty phase of trial, the jury returned death verdicts for both murders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during a traffic stop and any fruit of that search; (2) the trial court did not err in the way it conducted voir dire; (3) Defendant's evidentiary challenges were without merit; (4) one instance of prosecutorial error occurred, but the error was not prejudicial; (5) any error during the aggravation phase was harmless; and (6) Defendant's challenges to the death penalty were unavailing. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that four legislative budget reconciliation bills (BRBs) - House Bill (HB) 2898, Senate Bill (SB) 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819 - violated the Arizona Constitution's title requirement and were therefore void in part and that SB 1819 violated the constitutional single subject rule.Plaintiffs - the Arizona School Boards Association and other organizations and citizens - challenged four of the eight BRBs included in the 2022 budget approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The trial court ruled that the challenged sections of all four BRBs violated the title requirement and that the entirety of SB 1819 violated the single subject rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in ruling that the noncompliant portions of HB 2898, SB 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819 were unconstitutional in violation of the title requirement and that SB 1819 was unconstitutional and void in violation of the single subject rule. View "Arizona School Boards Ass'n, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in Plaintiffs' favor on their common law negligence claims and their dram shop liability claim against JAI Dining Services (Phoenix) Inc., holding that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the question of whether JAI was relieved from liability from overserving alcohol.After spending the evening drinking and socializing at a club in Phoenix, Cesar Villanueva, while intoxicated, drove his truck home. Villanueva fell asleep for a short time before he agreed to take a friend home. Villanueva, however, was still intoxicated and struck a vehicle, killing two people. Villanueva was convicted of two counts of manslaughter and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Plaintiffs, the victims' families, sued JAI, which owned the club, alleging negligence-based claims for over serving alcohol to Villanueva. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a jury could reasonably have concluded that Villanueva’s act of driving while intoxicated, even after he reached home, was nevertheless foreseeable by someone in the club’s position and not extraordinary in hindsight. View "Torres v. JAI Dining Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court terminating the parent-child relationship of Father to his four children, holding that while the juvenile court misapplied two factors set forth in Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 196 Ariz. 246 (2000), substantial evidence existed to support the termination.After a hearing, the juvenile court found that Father's incarcerative sentence was of sufficient length to deprive the children of a normal home for a period of years and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the Michael J. factors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court misapplied the first two Michael J. factors; (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father's sentence was of sufficient length to deprive the children of a normal home for a period of years; and (3) reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court's best-interests finding. View "Jessie D. v. Department of Child Safety" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the decision of the Arizona Corporation Commission to consolidate several communities into a single service district, gradually increasing rates for some and lowering them for others to achieve uniform rates, holding that there was no error.The Commission consolidated the monthly wastewater rates paid by five wastewater districts acquired by EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. in 2012. Sun City, one of the wastewater districts, appealed, arguing that the consolidated rate discriminated against residents of Sun City. The court of appeals upheld the Commission's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the rates approved by the Commission for the fully consolidated EPCOR district did not violate Ariz. Const. art. XV, 12. View "Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission" on Justia Law