Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

These consolidated cases involved two properties purchased by John Hogan. Each parcel became subject to a deed of trust when Hogan took out loans from Long Beach Mortgage Company. Hogan was delinquent on both loans, which triggered foreclosure proceedings. A notice of trustee's sale recorded for the first parcel identified Washington Mutual Bank as the beneficiary and Deutsche Bank as the beneficiary for the second parcel. Hogan filed lawsuits seeking to enjoin the trustees' sales unless the beneficiaries proved they were entitled to collect on the respective notes. The superior court dismissed the cases. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statute (Statute) does not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's orders dismissing Hogan's complaints and vacated the court of appeals, holding that the Statute does not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or show the note before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure. View "Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Ariz. Rev. Stat 8-238 requires juveniles charged with certain offenses and summoned to appear at an advisory hearing to submit to the investigating law enforcement agency a sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for DNA testing and extraction. The penalty for failure to comply is revocation of release pending adjudication. In this case seven juveniles were separately charged with violations of offenses specified in section 8-238(A). Each was summoned to an advisory hearing, released, and ordered to submit a buccal sample to law enforcement within five days. In each case, the superior court rejected Fourth Amendment objections to the sampling order. The Juveniles jointly filed a special action in the court of appeals, which held that requiring the submission of DNA samples from juveniles for whom a probable cause determination has been made does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals, holding that the statutory scheme violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. View "Mario W. v. Superior Court (Kaipio)" on Justia Law

This case concerned a challenge to the nomination of Lois Jean McDermott, a Democratic candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives. McDermott appealed from a superior court judgment striking her from the primary election ballot because she identified her name as "Cheuvront-McDermott, Jean" in her nomination paper. McDermott's legal surname was McDermott. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) McDermott substantially complied with the requirements in Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-311(G), which directs that the candidate's surname shall be printed first; and (2) McDermott's name shall be printed on the primary ballot as "McDermott, Jean Cheuvront." View "Dedolph v. McDermott" on Justia Law

This automatic appeal arose from Defendant's 2009 death sentences for the 1996 murders of Thomas Hardman and Carol Lynn Noel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that (1) the trial court did not err by allowing the State to offer evidence during the penalty phase of the felony murders when he did not present any mitigating evidence; (2) the trial court did not violate Defendant's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and state Constitution by refusing to grant a pretrial evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce photographs of the crime scenes showing the victims' bodies; and (4) Defendant's death sentences were appropriate. View "State v. Nordstrom" on Justia Law

In the underlying federal court action, an auto insurer (Insurer) sought a declaratory judgment that it had validly denied Insured's underinsured motorist (UIM) claim. Insured was injured while a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, who had a motorcycle insurance policy with Insurer. Insured counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith. The U.S. district court certified several questions to the state Supreme Court. The Court held (1) Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01(G) required Insurer to provide UIM coverage for Insured under the auto policy, where Insured's total damages exceeded the amount of her tort recovery from her husband under the husband's motorcycle policy; and (2) Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01(H) did not permit Insurer to refuse to provide Insured with UIM coverage under her auto policy because she was partially indemnified as a claimant under the liability coverage of the separate motorcycle policy issued by Insurer to Insured's husband, whose negligence contributed to Insured's injuries. View "Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Gary Gipson was indicted for first degree murder, illegal discharge of a firearm, and aggravated assault. At trial, the judge sua sponte instructed the jury on second degree murder over Gipson's objection and on manslaughter over the objections of both Gipson and the State. The jury found Gipson guilty of manslaughter and illegal discharge of a firearm. On appeal, Gipson conceded that the evidence supported the manslaughter instruction, but he argued that the trial court erred by giving it over the objections of both parties. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although a judge should hesitate to give the instruction over objections from the defense and the prosecution, it was not reversible error in this case to do so. View "State v. Gipson" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involved two properties purchased by John Hogan. Each parcel became subject to a deed of trust when Hogan took out loans from Long Beach Mortgage Company. Hogan was delinquent on both loans, which triggered foreclosure proceedings. The trustee recorded a notice of sale for the first parcel, naming Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) as the beneficiary. A notice of trustee's sale recorded for the second parcel identified Deutsche Bank as the beneficiary. Hogan filed lawsuits seeking to enjoin the trustees' sales unless the beneficiaries proved they were entitled to collect on the respective notes. The superior court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statute did not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the superior court's orders, holding that Hogan was not entitled to relief because the deed of trust statutes impose no obligation on the beneficiary to "show the note" before the trustee conducts a non-judicial foreclosure. View "Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank. N.A." on Justia Law

The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures fined AutoZone, Inc. for violating the Pricing Act, which prohibits mispricing and requires a seller to display prices on merchandise or at the point of display. The State later sued AutoZone alleging that, by violating the Pricing Act, AutoZone had also violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of AutoZone. The court of appeals vacated the superior court and remanded, holding that because the Pricing Act imposes a statutory duty to price items, any failure to do was not an omission but an "act," and was thus governed by the CFA's Act Clause, which imposes strict liability for not pricing goods as required by the Pricing Act. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly held that neither side was entitled to summary judgment; (2) the CFA does not authorize disgorgement to the State; and (3) the court of appeals erred in awarding the State interlocutory attorney's fees. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc." on Justia Law

This case concerned commercial property that was subject to a deed of trust and auctioned at trustee's sales twice in 2009. Alleging it was the successful bidder at the second sale, BT Capital, LLC sued the trustee and the trust beneficiary seeking title to the property and damages. The trial court granted summary judgment against BT and dismissed BT's tort claims. While BT's appeal was pending, another trustees sale was conducted in 2010, and a trustee's deed conveyed the property to a beneficiary. The court of appeals subsequently reversed the entry of summary judgment and remanded. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and affirmed the superior court's entry of summary judgment against BT, holding that the case was rendered moot when the property was purchased by the beneficiary at the third trustee's sale in 2010. View "BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz." on Justia Law

In early 2011, Colleen Mathis was selected as the chairperson of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). In October 2011, the Governor notified the Commissioners of allegations that they had committed substantial neglect of duty and gross misconduct in office. The next month, the Secretary of State sent a letter to Mathis removing her from the IRC. Two-thirds of the Senate concurred in the removal, and Mathis was removed from office. Three days later, the IRC petitioned the Supreme Court for special action relief, claiming that the Governor exceeded her limited removal authority and that the Governor and the Senate violated separation-of-powers principles by usurping powers of the IRC and the judiciary. The Court accepted special action jurisdiction and (1) concluded, as a matter of law, that neither of the Governor's two stated grounds for removing Mathis constituted substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct in office, as required by the Arizona Constitution; and (2) ordered that Mathis be reinstated as chair of the IRC. View "Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Mathis" on Justia Law