Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the Town of Marana violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 9-463.05 by assigning the entire cost of upgraded and expanded wastewater treatment facilities to future homeowners through development impact fees.\Applying the Home Builders Ass'n of Central Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479 (1997), the court ruled that the development impact fees bore a presumption of validity and that section 9-463.05 was satisfied because the development fees resulted in a beneficial use to the development. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and reversed the trial court, holding (1) in applying section 9-463.05 as amended, the court of appeals erroneously applied from City of Scottsdale a presumption of validity to the Town's assessment of development fees; and (2) the Town violated section 9-463.05 by making future development bear 100 percent of the cost of acquiring the wastewater treatment facility and bearing nearly all of the cost of upgrading, modernizing, and improving the facility. View "Southern Ariz. Home Builders Ass'n v. Town of Marana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the final statements in the "Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act" initiative description, when read in its entirety, did not communicate objectively false or misleading information.Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming that the initiative description at issue was legally insufficient because the final statement "Does not change existing law regarding secured debt" was misleading or objectively false. The trial court denied the objection and ordered that the Act qualified to appear on the general election ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the description, when read in its entirety, alerted a reasonable person to the principal provisions' general objectives and was not objectively false or misleading. View "Protect Our Ariz. v. Fontes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the political question doctrine prohibits courts from adjudicating complaints that legislative committees held meetings in violation of Arizona's Open Meeting Law (OML). See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 38-431(6), -431.01(A).Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Arizona Legislature alleging that twenty-six Republican legislators were threatening to violate the OML by attending a summit hosted by the American Legislative Exchange Council that was closed to the general public. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that whether the Legislature complied with the OML was a nonjusticiable political question. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the question of whether the Legislature violated the OML was nonjusticiable. View "Puente v. Arizona State Legislature" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order granting preliminary injunctive relief in this case, holding that courts lack authority to enter a nunc pro tunc order absent clerical error or mistake in the record rendering such an order void and subject to collateral attack.In 1994, Nevada Freeman was convicted of first-degree murder. In 2020, after disagreement about whether Freeman was parole eligible, Freeman and the State entered into a stipulation regarding Freeman's sentence. The stipulation stated that, at the time of Freeman's sentencing, the parties intended that after twenty-five years' imprisonment Freeman would be eligible for parole. The parties thus requested that Freeman's sentencing order be corrected to include the word "parole" as a form of release. The judge entered a nunc pro tunc order making the requested amendment. Freeman then filed claim for injunctive relief arguing that his sentence, as amended, clearly conferred parole eligibility. The trial judge granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court exceeded its authority under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.4 because it did not remedy a clerical error, omission, or oversight in the record. View "Shinn v. Ariz. Bd. Of Executive Clemency" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 23-1043.01(B), which limits workers' compensation claims for mental illnesses to those that arise from an "unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress" situation, does not violate Ariz. Const. art. XVIII, 8 or equal protection guarantees under Ariz. Const. art. II, 13.Plaintiff, an officer with the Tucson Police Department, filed an industrial injury claim arising from an incident in June 2018, claiming that it exacerbated his preexisting post-traumatic stress disorder. An administrative law judge found Plaintiff's claims for mental injuries non-compensable because the June 2018 incident was not an "unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress" situation under section 23-1043.01(B). The court of appeals affirmed the denial of benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 23-1043.01(B) does not unconstitutionally limit recovery for stress-related workplace injuries. View "Matthews v. Industrial Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court, after a jury trial, in this tort action for first-party insurance bad faith, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on waiver and mitigation of damages.Plaintiff sued Defendant for insurance bad faith. Defendant denied liability and asked the trial court to instruct the jury on waiver, in the form of a contract waiver instruction, and mitigation of damages. The trial court granted Defendant's request for both jury instructions, and the jury returned a verdict for Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the waiver jury instruction was misleading and prejudicial to Plaintiff, requiring a remand for a new trial. View "Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that public policy prohibits an agreement between a builder-vendor and a homebuyer to disclaim and waive the warranty of workmanship and habitability implied in every contract entered into between the buyer-vendor and homebuyer and to replace it with an express warranty.Plaintiff entered into a preprinted purchase agreement with M & RC II, LLC to buy a home that M & RC II's affiliate, Scott Homes Development Company, would build. Plaintiff later sued M & RC II and Scott Homes (together, Defendants) for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff had waived the implied warranty per the purchase agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the public policy underlying the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability clearly outweighed enforcement of the waiver of that warranty in the purchase agreement. View "Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, two counts of aggravated assault causing temporary but substantial disfigurement, and one count of attempted second degree murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that a conviction for attempted second degree murder may be based not only on intent to kill but on recklessness or the defendant's knowledge that serious injury would result. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the trial court's instruction on second degree murder was erroneous, and a new instruction is necessary, which the Court adopts in this opinion; and (2) based on the evidence, the nature of the charged offense, and other factors, Defendant fell short of meeting his burden of persuading the Court that he suffered prejudice. View "State v. Fierro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that while the broad evidence rule is not applicable in Arizona such that that an insurer and/or fact-finder may consider labor depreciation as a pertinent factor in determining the term "actual cash value" in a homeowner's insurance policy, this Court does not categorically preclude application of the broad evidence rule with respect to other homeowners' insurance policies where appropriate.Plaintiffs purchased a homeowners insurance policy from Defendant that did not define the terms "actual cash value" or "depreciation." When Plaintiffs' home received water damage Defendant accepted coverage for the loss. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint alleging that Defendant underpaid them and other similarly situated insureds by depreciating both materials and labor when calculating property damage claims under their respective homeowners' insurance policies. The federal district court certified two questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) under the terms of the policy at issue, an insurer may not depreciate the cost of labor when determining actual cash value, and the broad evidence rule does not apply; and (2) there is no bar to application of the broad evidence rule where the terms of the policy do not dictate otherwise in the context of other homeowners' insurance policies in Arizona. View "Walker v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Arizona Corporation Commission, acting by a majority of its commissioners, may not prevent an individual commissioner from exercising investigatory powers pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. XV, 4, and a commission aggrieved by such action may seek judicial recourse by way of declaratory judgment pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-1831 to -1846.The court of appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court dismissing the underlying case brought by Plaintiff, a member of the Commission, seeking declaratory relief and arguing that individual commissioners have authority to demand compliance with subpoenas without the approval from other commissioners. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and reversed the superior court's denial of summary judgment on the issues before the Court, holding (1) the Arizona Constitution does not allow a majority of commissioners to prevent any single commissioner from exercising the investigatory powers expressly granted to each in article 15, section 4; and (2) the Arizona Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act grants a commissioner standing to seek a declaration of his and his colleagues' rights. View "Burns v. Arizona Public Service Co." on Justia Law