Featured Cases
As the highest judicial authority in the state, the Arizona Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting state laws, enforcing the state and federal constitutions, and shaping legal precedent across a wide variety of civil and criminal matters. Featured cases before the Court typically address complex, high-stakes issues that carry significant public interest or set major legal standards statewide.
Featured Cases
Bio: Alfredo Marquez
Issues raised at the Arizona Supreme Court:
- Whether a claim for punitive damages survives the death of a tortfeasor and may be pursued against his or her estate?
- Whether a corporate defendant can be held vicariously liable for punitive damages arising out of the tortious conduct of its now-deceased employee?
Issue raised at the US Supreme Court: Is a juvenile defendant entitled to due process in delinquency proceedings where there is a possibility of incarceration?
the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the unauthorized practice of law by land title and trust companies. The State Bar argued that these commercial entities were illegally engaging in legal practice by preparing complex legal instruments—such as deeds, mortgages, and trust agreements—for their customers incident to their title-insurance transactions. The court ruled in favor of the State Bar, holding that while title companies may prepare simple, routine forms strictly necessary to their own business, they cannot draft instruments or provide legal advice affecting the substantial legal rights of third parties. The decision established strict definitions for what constitutes the "practice of law" in Arizona, emphasizing that commercial entities cannot bypass the ethical obligations and court discipline required of licensed attorneys.
Issues raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Water rights and adverse possession.
Issues raised at the Arizona Court of Appeals Division One: Can a trial court admit Parol Evidence to explain an ambiguous condemnation clause in a commercial lease.
The basic question presented in this appeal is whether the provisions of A.R.S. Title 16, chapter 6, which is entitled "Nomination Other Than By Primary Election," apply to a person who has run in the preceding primary election and has been defeated therein.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the State Bar. The Court emphasized that an attorney's failure to promptly account for and pay over money collected for a client is a severe breach of professional duty. Taking into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court ordered that Holohan be officially censured for his misconduct.
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Whether a local superior court rule may limit a party's statutory right to disqualify a judge for bias by imposing additional filing deadlines, or whether the judge must transfer the case upon the timely filing of a proper affidavit of bias under A.R.S. § 12-409.
Issues raised at the Arizona Supreme Court:
- Whether withdrawals of signatures submitted before final passage of the ordinance were legally effective.
- Whether the City of Phoenix had jurisdiction to enact the annexation ordinance if those withdrawals reduced the petition below the required 50% valuation threshold under A.C.A. § 16-701.
- Whether an annexation ordinance adopted without a sufficient petition was valid.
Issues raised at the Arizona Supreme Court:
Where the operation of a business, such as a cattle feedlot is lawful in the first instance, but becomes a nuisance by reason of a nearby residential area, may the feedlot operation be enjoined in an action brought by the developer of the residential area?
May a developer of a completely new town or urban area in a previously agricultural area be required to indemnify the operator of the feedlot who must move or cease operation because of the presence of the residential area created by the developer?
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Whether a private, nonprofit educational institution, otherwise entitled to a real property tax exemption, is nevertheless disqualified by receipt of student tuition and fee charges (for room, board and other services) for the reason that such charges constitute "a rent or valuable consideration."
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Does the Arizona Corporation Commission have the authority to issue a certificate of convenience and necessity to a second public utility to provide natural gas service in an area already served, or authorized to be served, by another public utility?
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Do Certificates of Convenience and Necessity create a perpetual exclusive franchise or vested property right in a service territory?
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Does a superior court judge acting as a committing magistrate have jurisdiction and a duty to conduct a preliminary hearing in a felony case?
Issue raised at the United States Supreme Court: Did the federal government have authority under the Constitution and federal law to prosecute private individuals who conspired to forcibly remove U.S. citizens from one state to another, violating their right to remain and travel within a state?
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Was there sufficient evidence to support Alvin Clarence Thomas’s conviction for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a minor, and did the trial court properly handle the admission and evaluation of testimony from the minor victim?
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Did the City of Tucson have the authority under its charter and Arizona law to condemn (take by eminent domain) all of Citizens Utilities Water Company’s water utility properties in Pima County, including facilities located outside the city limits that did not directly serve Tucson residents?
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Did the evidence presented by McClinton create a valid claim for slander and malicious prosecution against Rice, or was the trial court correct in directing a verdict for Rice because McClinton failed to prove the required elements of those torts?
the Supreme Court determined that the evidence showing the railroad flashers were working was so overwhelming that the jury's contrary conclusion could not stand. Consequently, the court ruled against the Pedricks, cementing a foundational legal standard that balanced the constitutional right to a jury trial with the court's duty to prevent irrational verdicts.
Issue raised at the Arizona Supreme Court: Should Arizona continue to recognize the doctrine of governmental (sovereign) immunity that protects the state and its agencies from liability for negligent acts, or should the state be held liable for injuries caused by its negligence in the same manner as private parties?