Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that in determining whether a petition for court-ordered treatment complies with statutory requirements, courts may consider contents of an extrinsic document attached to an affidavit if the affidavit specifically incorporates the attachment by reference.The trial court found that G.B. was persistently or actually disabled and ordered treatment for one year. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's order on the grounds that involuntary treatment proceedings require strict statutory compliance and that two affidavits submitted by G.B. failed to comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. 36-533(B). The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that that there was no fundamental, prejudicial error in this case because the trial court's error did not deprive G.B. of a fair opportunity to oppose the petition for involuntary treatment or to otherwise receive a fair hearing. View "In re Pima County Mental Health No. 20200860221" on Justia Law

In this referendum matter concerning a city ordinance, the Supreme Court held that the proponent's error in failing to include the text of the to-be-referred ordinance within its application for a petition serial number, as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. 19-111(A), could not be cured by showing that the City Clerk and petition signers knew what ordinance was being referred but that nothing authorized the City Clerk to reject petition sheets due to the application error.At issue was Ordinance 2022-18, which would take effect thirty days later unless referred to the ballot for a vote. Plaintiff sought to refer the ordinance to the ballot, but the City Clerk rejected Plaintiff's petition sheets and signatures based on Plaintiff's failure to attach the ordinance to the application for a petition serial number. Plaintiff brought this action seeking to compel the City Clerk to accept the sheets and signatures. The court concluded that the application's failure to strictly comply with section 19-111(A) was fatal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not strictly comply with section 19-111(A) when filing its application for a serial number and could not correct that error through its offered evidence; but (2) the City Clerk was not authorized to reject Plaintiff's circulated and signed petition sheets because the application for serial number was deficient. View "Voice of Surprise v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals vacating the order of the juvenile court terminating Mother's parental rights under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-533(B)(8)(c), holding that the court of appeals exceeded the proper scope of review and erroneously implied that it could dismiss the dependency finding in an appeal challenging a termination order.In vacating the juvenile court's judgment terminating parental rights, the court of appeals concluded that "even accepting all of the juvenile court's findings of fact...the state failed to meet its burden to justify severance" and that the juvenile court clearly erred. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals opinion and affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court, holding (1) the court of appeals' failure to examine each element contained in the statutory ground for termination was error; (2) the court of appeals exceeded the proper scope of review by reweighing the evidence presented to the juvenile court; and (3) the juvenile court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory ground for termination was proven by clear and convincing evidence. View "Brionna J. v. Dep't of Child Safety, A.V." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a county attorney's prior representation of Defendant, who was charged with the crime of possession of methamphetamine for sale, did not create an appearance of impropriety in the current prosecution warranting disqualification of the entire county attorney's office.While still in private practice, Attorney represented Defendant in a marriage annulment matter, and Attorney eventually obtained a default annulment. Attorney was subsequently elected county attorney. The county attorney's office later charged Defendant with a drug-related crime. Defendant moved to disqualify the county attorney's office based upon an appearance of impropriety. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the order disqualifying the county attorney's office, holding that there was no appearance of impropriety in the current prosecution because there was no substantial relationship between the annulment matter and the current matter upon which to conclude that Defendant would be prejudiced by the county attorney's office's continued prosecution. View "State v. Honorable Chambers" on Justia Law

In this murder case, the Supreme Court established a standard a defendant must satisfy to compel extraction of GPS data by a defendant's third-party agent from a crime victim's automobile for the trial court's in camera inspection and held that remand was required in the instant case.Defendant was charged with the second-degree murder of Grant Draper, making his brother Lane Draper a victim by virtue of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-4401(12), a statute that implements the Arizona Constitution's Victims' Bill of Rights. During plea negotiations and without notice to Lane, Defendant obtained a court order to access GPS data to support his third-party defense identifying Lane as the possible killer and for cross-examination regarding the time Defendant argued he was asleep. The trial court allowed the data to be extracted for a limited in camera interview. Lane filed a petition for special action, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court held (1) a defendant is entitled to discovery from a victim if the defendant seeks evidence of a constitutional dimension and the defendant establishes that the requested discovery is very likely to contain such evidence; and (2) remand was required in this case. View "Draper v. Honorable Gentry" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-259.01 mandates that a single policy insuring multiple vehicles provides different underinsured motorist (UIM) coverages for each vehicle rather than a single UIM coverage that applies to multiple vehicles.Plaintiff's mother died in a car crash caused by a neglectful driver. Plaintiff submitted a UIM to CSAA General Insurance Company, her mother's insurer. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff's mother's CSAA policy covered the mother's two vehicles and provided UIM coverage of $50,000 per person. When CSAA paid only $50,000 Plaintiff sought an additional $50,000 under an "intra-policy stacking" theory. After CSAA rejected the claim, Plaintiff sued for declaratory judgment, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and a class action. CSAA moved to certify two questions. The Supreme Court answered (1) insurers seeking to prevent insureds from stacking UIM coverages under a single, multi-vehicle policy must employ section 20-259.01(H)'s sole prescribed method for limiting stacking; and (2) section 20-259.01(B) does not bar an insured from receiving UIM coverage from the policy in an amount greater than the bodily injury or death liability limits of the policy. View "Franklin v. CSAA General Insurance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Arizona law does not permit an insurer to challenge the validity of a life insurance policy based on a lack of insurable interest after the expiration of the two-year contestability period required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20-1204.Columbus Life Insurance Policy, which issued a life insurance policy on the lives of Howard and Eunice Peterson, filed a lawsuit following the Petersons' death seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy was unenforceable and seeking to retain the premiums. Wilmington Trust N.A., which was designated as the owner of the policy, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Columbus could not challenge the policy's validity in light of the incontestability provision in the provision and section 20-1204. The federal district court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether Columbus could challenge the policy's validity. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that section 20-1204 allows challenges to the validity of the policy after the incontestability period only for nonpayment of premiums. View "Columbus Life Insurance Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court resolved a conflict between Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP) 7(a)(4)(A), which instructs courts to include "damages, costs, attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest" when setting the amount of a supersedeas bond, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-2108(A)(1), which instructs courts only to include damages, in favor of the rule.The superior court entered judgment against Robert Wallace for wrongfully filing a UCC-1 lien and awarded statutory damages plus attorney fees and costs. Wallace appealed, asking the court to set a supersedeas bond at $0 under section 12-2108(A)(1). The court, however, calculated the bond under ARCAP 7(a)(4)(A), including the statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. Wallace filed a petition for special action in the Supreme Court challenging the rule's validity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) ARCAP 7(a)(4)(A) and section 12-2108(A)(1) are in direct conflict; and (2) section 12-2108(A)(1) regulates a procedural area of law within the purview of the judicial branch and therefore must yield where it conflicts with ARCAP 7(a)(4)(A). View "Wallace v. Honorable Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's amended final judgment finding that an initiative entitled the "Arizona Fair Elections Act" failed to qualify for the November 8, 2022 ballot, holding that the Act fell short of the required number of valid signatures, and therefore the trial court properly disqualified the initiative from the ballot.At issue in these multiple expedited election appeals and cross-appeals was the interpretation and application of the statutes governing initiative petitions and the method for determining whether an initiative has sufficient valid signatures to qualify for placement on an election ballot. The trial court found that the initiative had an insufficient number of valid signatures and ordered the Secretary of State to rescind the previous determination that the initiative qualified for placement on the ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed in their challenge. View "Mussi v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the pre-trial orders of the trial court precluding Defendant from presenting at trial expert and lay witness testimony about his intellectual disability, holding that the trial court properly precluded the evidence but that Defendant could introduce admissible "behavioral-tendency evidence" through expert and lay witness testimony.Defendant was charged with child abuse, kidnapping, and first-degree felony murder for his daughter's death in the course of committing child abuse. Defendant was originally found incompetent to stand trial but, after restoration treatment, was determined competent to stand trial. At issue was certain pre-trial rulings made by the trial court. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court properly precluded Defendant's proffered expert and lay witness testimony about his intellectual disability; (2) Defendant, however, may introduce what is sometimes referred to as "observation evidence" through expert and lay witness testimony; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Defendant's proposed list of lay witnesses from eleven to two. View "Cruz v. Honorable Blair" on Justia Law