Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Corizon Healthcare Inc. in this medical malpractice action, holding that the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-2604 do not apply to claims against medical institutions not based on vicarious liability.David Windhurst, an inmate, was provided with health care through the Arizona Department of Corrections' contractor Corizon Healthcare Inc. David later died due the infections complications of diabetes mellitus. Plaintiff, David's widow, filed a wrongful death action against Corizon and other defendants, alleging, inter alia, institutional negligence by Corizon and vicarious liability based on the negligence of its medical personnel. The trial court granted summary judgment for Corizon on the medical negligence claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when it is unclear which provider breached the standard of care, an expert on institutional standards of care may address an alleged breach by establishing that a class of providers failed to exercise appropriate care; (2) the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment for Corizon; and (3) a registered nurse may testify regarding gate cause of death in a medical malpractice case. View "Windhurst v. Ariz. Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's petition seeking post-conviction relief (PCR), holding that Petitioner's natural life sentence was not mandatory within the meaning of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.Petitioner was sixteen when he shot and killed two people. He was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to natural life for one murder and life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for the other murder. Petitioner later filed the PCR petition at issue, claiming that his natural life sentence violated Miller and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016). The PCR court determined that a colorable claim existed and that and that a Valencia evidentiary hearing was warranted. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's ruling and dismissed the PCR petition, holding that Petitioner did not present a colorable claim for relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g) because his natural life sentence was not mandatory within the meaning of Miller and there had not been a significant change in the law that, if applied to Petitioner's case, would probably overturn his sentence. View "State ex rel. Mitchell v. Honorable Cooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that an injury settlement agreement between the married couple in this case and a third party did constitute a valid and binding property settlement or postnuptial agreement, thus reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.Husband and Wife sued the manufacturer of Husband's pacemaker, among other parties, claiming medical malpractice. The couple were awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $5.4 million in punitive damages. Thereafter, the couple entered into a written settlement agreement with the pacemaker manufacturer requiring, for purposes of this appeal, Husband and Wife to use $5.4 million of the settlement to fund a series of annuity payments. Later, the parties separated, and the trial court entered a dissolution decree finding that the parties had agreed to the allocation of the settlement funds. Wife appealed, arguing that the punitive damages portion of the agreement was a community asset that should have been equitably divided. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's determination that the annuity payments were not community property based on the settlement, holding that the agreement was not a valid postnuptial agreement. View "Sowards v. Sowards" on Justia Law

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