Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was diagnosed with drug-induced lupus, allegedly a side effect from using Solodyn, a treatment for acne. Plaintiff sued Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, which manufactures and distributes Solodyn, alleging that Medicis knowingly represented and omitted material facts in connection with the sale or advertisement of Solodyn in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). Plaintiff also alleged that Medicis failed to adequately warn her of the consequences of the long-term use of Solodyn. The superior court granted Medicis’s motion to dismiss. At issue on appeal was the learned intermediary doctrine (LID), under which a manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn end users by giving appropriate warnings to the class of persons who may prescribe or administer the product. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, holding (1) the LID does not prevent Plaintiff from suing Medicis; (2) Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive Medicis’s motion to dismiss with regard to her products liability claim; and (3) the CFA applies to prescription pharmaceuticals, and therefore, Plaintiff alleged an actionable claim under the CFA. View "Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp." on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. The State’s evidence supporting the conviction included testimony by a firearms examiner that a certain pistol had fired six shell casings found at the murder scene. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Defendant from offering expert testimony that firearms examiners use subjective rather than scientifically rigorous methods in drawing conclusions from indentations on shell casings. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court in part and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony where Defendant’s expert witness was qualified and his testimony would have been helpful to the jury in understanding the evidence. View "State v. Romero" on Justia Law

Mother filed this action to terminate the parental rights of Father to their minor child on the ground of abandonment. After a contested severance hearing, the juvenile court found that Father had abandoned the child and that severance was in the child’s best interests. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the record did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that termination was in the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the juvenile court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest, holding that reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that severance would be in the child’s best interests. View "Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F." on Justia Law

In this capital case, Defendant was indicted on two counts of first degree murder. Defendant indicated that he would accept a plea offer to natural life it were offered to him, but the State did not extend a plea offer. Defendant later filed a motion in limine seeking permission to introduce evidence of his willingness to accept a natural life plea offer at the penalty phase of his trial if he is convicted and becomes eligible for the death penalty. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s proposition did not evidence a true acceptance of responsibility for his actions. The Supreme Court vacated the order denying Defendant’s motion to permit introduction of evidence of his pretrial offer to plead guilty, holding that a capital defendant’s pretrial offer to plead guilty in exchange for a natural life sentence is admissible to demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility for the murder, a non-statutory circumstance. View "Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. Rosa Morz" on Justia Law

When Robert and Diane Merrill divorced in 1993 the family court awarded each party one-half of Robert’s military retirement pay (MRP) disability benefits as their separate property. In 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) found Robert eligible to receive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Robert waived a portion of MRP to receive CRSC. Consequently, Diane’s monthly share of MRP decreased significantly. In 2010, Diane requested that the family court award her arrearages from her reduced share of MRP and compensate her for future reduced payments of MRP. The family court denied the petition, concluding that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-318.01 - which prohibits courts from “making up” for a reduction in MRP due to a retired veteran receiving CRSC benefits by awarding additional assets to the non-military ex-spouse - proscribed the requested relief. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that section 25-318.01 does not apply to CRSC awards. The legislature subsequently amended section 25-318.01 to make it applicable to CRSC benefits. Thereafter, the court of appeals vacated its order and deemed Diane’s 2010 petition denied. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, holding that section 25-318.01 cannot apply to preclude indemnification when a retired veteran makes a post-decree waiver of MRP to obtain CRSC benefits and the decree was entered before section 25-318.01’s effective date. View "Merrill v. Merrill" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, assault, and kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court properly admitted evidence of statements by Defendant’s brother recounting the events preceding the victim’s death; (2) the admission of gang expert testimony was proper; (3) the trial judge did not commit fundamental error by allowing the jury to consider the Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-751(F)(6) “especially cruel” aggravator under appropriate limiting instructions; and (4) the jury did not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant Defendant leniency. View "State v. Guarino" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a divorce decree entered in 1991, Sandra Powell began receiving fifty percent of John Howell’s military retirement pay (MRP) when John retired from the Air Force. John later qualified for monthly, tax-exempt VA disability payments. A veteran who receives MRP cannot collect VA disability benefits unless the veteran waives an equivalent amount of MRP. John elected a VA waiver. Accordingly, monthly MRP payments to both John and Sandra were reduced. Sandra moved to enforce the decree’s division of MRP and also sought an arrearage amount equaling the reductions in her share of MRP after the VA waiver. John opposed the request, arguing that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-318.01 barred the family court from requiring him to indemnify Sandra for the reduction in her share of MRP. The family court granted Sandra’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) federal law does not preempt the family court’s authority to order a retired veteran to indemnify an ex-spouse for a reduction in MRP caused by a post-decree waiver of MRP made to obtain disability benefits; and (2) section 25-318.01 does not prohibit the court from entering an indemnification order in these circumstances if the ex-spouse’s share of MRP vested as a property right before 2010. View "Howell v. Howell" on Justia Law

DBT Yuma subleased property at the Yuma International Airport from the Yuma County Airport Authority - a nonprofit corporation that operated the airport under a lease from Yuma County - and operated a fixed base operation there. YCAA later evicted DBT Yuma and entered into a new sublease with another tenant. DBT Yuma sued YCAA for breaching its sublease. DBT Yuma later added Yuma County as a defendant, alleging that YCAA was the County’s “instrumentality and alter ego,” and therefore, the County was liable for YCAA’s breach. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. At issue on appeal was the interpretation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 28-8424(A)(3), under which a nonprofit corporation that leases airport property from a county “[p]erforms an essential governmental function as an agency or instrumentality” of the county. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 28-8424(A)(3) by itself does not make YCAA the County’s agent for purposes of imputed liability. View "DBT Yuma LLC v. Yuma County Airport Auth." on Justia Law

Petitioners were each charged with two counts of driving under the influence (DUI). Count two alleged a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 28-1381(A)(3), which prohibits driving a vehicle while there is cannabis (marijuana) or its metabolite in the defendant’s body. Both petitioners were medical marijuana cardholders. Petitioners were each convicted. At issue on appeal was whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) immunizes a medical marijuana cardholder from DUI prosecution under section 28-1381(A)(3). The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioners’ conviction, holding (1) the AMMA does not shield a medical marijuana cardholder from prosecution under section 28-1381(A)(3); but (2) the AMMA does but does afford an affirmative defense for those patients who can show that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment. View "Dobson v. Hon. Crane McClennen" on Justia Law

Freeport Minerals Corporation (Freeport) filed applications with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to sever certain water rights appurtenant to land in Mohave County and transfer them to a wellfield to be used at a mining complex in Yavapai county. As required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. 45-172(A)(7), ADWR published notice of Freeport’s severance and transfer applications, stating that “any interested person” could file written objections. Mohave County filed objections. ADWR rejected the County’s objections. The superior court vacated ADWR’s final decision on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and affirmed ADWR’s final decision, holding (1) section 45-172 defines the only grounds on which ADWR can deny a properly filed application to sever and transfer a water right; (2) the “interested persons” entitled to object to a proposed severance and transfer are limited to those with an interest that is protected by section 45-172; and (3) ADWR in this case properly denied the County’s objections to the proposed transfers because those objections did not identify any violation of section 45-172 and because the County did not qualify as an “interested person.” View "Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res. v. Hon. Crane McClennen" on Justia Law