Issued Saturday August 29, 2015
Wednesday July 22, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2008-0198||Dept. A||1:00pm||In Court||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINSTRATION v. COX|
Whether and to what extent the Arizona Department of Administration may recover, under A.R.S. § 12-962, the cost of medical care provided to participants in the state health insurance plan for injuries sustained as a result of third-party tort liability when the participants received compensation from that third party.
|2 CA-CV 2008-0151||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||JOHNSON UTILITIES COMPANY v. PECAN CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in finding a desert wash in the Pecan Creek North subdivision was a “recreational area” within the meaning community’s declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, thereby allowing the homeowners’ association to terminate a lease of property within the wash?|
Wednesday August 12, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2008-0193||Dept. B||2:00pm||Graham||C. Robert Pursley|
|Audio Recording||STEVEN MAHER v. BANK ONE; RUBAL|
1. In an action seeking to set aside an allegedly improper trustee’s sale and recover damages resulting from that sale, did the trustor-appellant, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33 811(C), waive claims that could have been raised as defenses or objections to the sale in an action for a preliminary injunction prior to the sale? 2. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on the trustor-appellant’s claims against the beneficiary-appellee for quiet title, breach of contract, and violation of Title 33, A.R.S., and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment without requiring the appellees to provide additional discovery?
|2 CA-CV 2009-0021||Dept. B||3:00pm||Pima||John F. Kelly|
|Audio Recording||MARGARET GODWIN v. BENAVIDEZ|
|Issue Summary: When the offeror’s Rule 68, Ariz. R. Civ. P., offer of judgment offers a specific damages amount “plus costs accrued to date,” and the jury awarded less in damages, did the trial court err in excluding from its calculations those costs and the costs awarded to the offeree as part of the final judgment in determining whether to award sanctions to the offeror pursuant to Rule 68(d)?|
Wednesday August 19, 2009
|2 CA-CR 2008-0100||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Richard S. Fields|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSHUA PAUL EUGENE HUFFMAN|
Whether a third trial, after the two previous trials ended in hung juries, violated defendant’s double jeopardy and due process rights under the United States and Arizona Constitutions.
Wednesday August 26, 2009
|2 CA-CR 2008-0157||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||John S. Leonardo|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. REGINA MARIE LOCKWOOD|
|Issue Summary: Is a stillborn fetus a “dead human body” for the purposes of A.R.S. § 13-2926, which prohibits the abandonment or concealment of human remains?|
|2 CA-CV 2009-0014||Dept. A||3:00pm||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||GRAND v. NACCHIO; McMASTER; QWEST COMMUNICATIONS|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in dismissing appellants’ Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim of either primary or secondary liability under the Arizona Securities Act?|
Tuesday September 15, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2009-0057||Dept. B||2:00pm||Pinal||William J. O'Neil|
|Audio Recording||LEVERAGED LAND, MONTGOMERY v. HODGES; CAIN|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by granting partial summary judgment in favor of defendants in a declaratory judgment action concerning the propriety of a property tax lien redemption after this court had reversed the entry of a default judgment because (1) evidence showed that the property owner was unable to redeem the property at the time of the default judgment, and (2) the redeeming party did not possess the statutory right to redeem?|
Wednesday September 23, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2009-0034||Dept. A||2:00pm||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||ANS DISTRIBUTING v. VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE|
1. In a merchant’s action alleging VISA’s breach of a written agreement to process the merchant’s credit transactions, did the merchant’s affidavit alleging the existence of additional obligations, beyond those stated in the written agreement, create a genuine issue of material fact barring summary judgment?
2. Did the trial court properly enter summary judgment in favor of VISA on the merchant’s claim of negligent misrepresentation despite the merchant’s allegations that VISA had made additional oral representations concerning the contract?
|2 CA-JV 2009-0019 - 2 CA-JV 2009-0020 (consolidated)||Dept. B||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||Virginia C. Kelly|
|Audio Recording||JORDAN C. , JESSE C., KAILYNN C., MICHELE C. v. ADES|
|Issue Summary: Did the juvenile court err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that, despite the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services, mother had failed to remedy the circumstances causing her two youngest children to remain in court-ordered, out-of-home care for fifteen months or longer and there was a substantial likelihood she would be unable to effectively parent the children in the near future, warranting termination of her parental rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c)?|
Wednesday October 07, 2009
|2 CA-SA 2009-0061||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||College of Law||Pima||Javier Chon-Lopez|
|Audio Recording||VICTOR SOLIS v. CHIHONKY, LLC|
In a negligence action brought by an injured patron against a tavern owner, is the affirmative defense created by A.R.S. § 12-711 available to the tavern owner, notwithstanding the provisions of Title 4, A.R.S.?
|2 CA-SA 2009-0062||Dept. A||4:00pm||College of Law||Pima||Deborah Bernini|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ERICA LEA DAUGHTERS-WHITE, SEAN AARON JOHNSON, JOHN CLIFTON LIVINGSTON ...|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge abuse her discretion in finding the real parties in interest, defendants in consolidated prosecutions for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, established a substantial need under Rule 15.1(g), Ariz. R. Crim. P., and Arizona case law, for the operating system software of the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-testing equipment and in ordering petitioner State of Arizona to disclose the software to the defendants?|
Wednesday October 14, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2009-0063||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Stephen C. Villarreal|
|Audio Recording||MARANA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. TOWN OF MARANA...|
1. Did the appellees—the town of Marana and the Marana Personnel Action Review Board—violate Arizona’s open meeting laws by accepting evidence in an executive session that related to the discharge of an employee of the Marana Police Department? And if so, were the appellees required by A.R.S. § 39-121.01 to disclose records of the hearing at the request of the appellant, the Marana Police Officers’ Association?
2. Did the appellant waive its argument that “acquisition of information in an employment appeal cannot occur during executive session” when the appellant failed to raise this argument in the superior court and never challenged the validity of the executive session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.07?
Thursday October 22, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2009-0022||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||John F. Kelly|
|Audio Recording||RICHARD E. LAMBERT, LTD. v. CITY OF TUCSON DEPT. OF PROCUREMENT|
Did the trial court err in overturning, as arbitrary and capricious, the City Director of Procurement’s decision that the City was entitled to assess liquidated damages against a contractor for late performance, and, as a result, in granting partial summary judgment in favor of the contractor?
|2 CA-CV 2009-0080||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||ANDREWS v. CORONA ELECTRIC, INC.|
Did the trial court err by concluding that plaintiff Nancy Andrews had not raised an issue of material fact concerning causation and by granting summary judgment to defendant Corona Electric as a result?
Wednesday December 02, 2009
|2 CA-CR 2008-0341||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MAXAMILANO PAREDES-SOLANO|
|Issue Summary: (1) Whether subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of A.R.S. § 13-3553 define multiple ways of committing a single offense or distinct offenses that cannot be combined in a single count of an indictment; (2) whether counts one and two of the indictment in this case are duplicitous; (3) whether the jury instructions regarding counts one and two resulted in duplicitous charges by permitting potentially nonunanimous verdicts; and (4) whether the defendant was entitled to an instruction on jury nullification.|
Wednesday December 09, 2009
|2 CA-CV 2009-0123||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||John E. Davis|
|Audio Recording||BALLESTEROS; PORTILLO and YERENA v. AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, et al|
1) Whether the trial court erred in interpreting the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM\UIM) coverage statute, A.R.S. § 20-259.01, to require the use of a Spanish-language offer form when the insurer is aware the potential insured only speaks Spanish.
2) Whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment because § 20-259.01 contains a safe-harbor provision which immunizes insurance companies from litigation when they provide insureds offer forms approved by the Department of Insurance.
3) Whether the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because questions of fact existed as to whether plaintiff knowingly declined UM\UIM coverage.
|2 CA-JV 2009-0080 - 2 CA-JV 2009-0081 (consolidated)||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Suzanna S. Cuneo|
|Audio Recording||IN RE MARTIN M. and RENE N.|
1) Whether A.R.S. § 28-3320(A)(6) requires the juvenile court to notify the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Department of Transportation (MVD) when a minor has been adjudicated delinquent based on the offense of possession of marijuana, or whether the juvenile court has the discretion to decide whether to notify MVD.
2) Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in deciding not to report the juveniles’ adjudications to MVD.
Wednesday January 13, 2010
|2 CA-CR 2009-0035||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Richard D. Nichols|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAVID CHARLES HENRY|
|Issue Summary: Do federal or Arizona prohibitions against ex post facto laws prevent the state from (1) applying its sex-offender registration and monitoring statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13-3821 to -3829, to a person convicted of armed rape in 1974 and (2) subsequently convicting him based on his failure to comply with a registration requirement created after 1974?|
Wednesday January 20, 2010
|2 CA-CR 2009-0028||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARK ANTHONY AURIGEMMA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court violate A.R.S. § 13-116 when it imposed consecutive sentences for Aurigemma’s first-degree burglary and aggravated assault convictions?|
Wednesday March 31, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0144||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pinal||William J. O'Neil|
|Audio Recording||MAERTENS v. CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION|
Wednesday April 07, 2010
|2 CA-CR 2008-0205||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Frank Dawley|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. LOUIE THOMAS MACHADO|
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in precluding evidence that suggested a third party committed the murder with which the appellant was charged? 2. Did the court err in precluding on hearsay grounds certain out-of-court statements the appellant had made to police? 3. Was the appellant entitled to present the results of a polygraph test that suggested he did not shoot the victim? 4. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on issues of eyewitness identification and reasonable doubt?
Wednesday April 21, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0132||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||Charles A. Irwin|
|Audio Recording||SMITH v. BENSON HOSPITAL; MAYBERRY|
1. In a medical malpractice action, did the trial court err by allowing the defense causation expert, allegedly not properly disclosed, to testify that the subsequent-treating physician, who was also plaintiff’s causation expert, rendered improper medical treatment that was the actual cause of plaintiff’s injuries?
2. Did trial court err by declining to give two jury instructions requested by plaintiff: one intended to cure the alleged error regarding fault of subsequent-treating physician and a second instruction on liability for subsequent harm?
Wednesday May 12, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0059||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||William J. O'Neil|
|Audio Recording||BRAILLARD v. MARICOPA COUNTY, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE|
1. In a wrongful death and survival action brought by the adult child and estate of a pretrial detainee who died from complications of diabetes which was untreated while she was in custody, did the trial court err in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office as a non-jural entity? 2. Can the violation of an adult child’s right to associate with a parent support a wrongful death claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, absent any official action directed at the parent-child relationship? 3. Did the trial court err in granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s § 1983 claims? 4. Do A.R.S. §§ 12-820.04 and 14-3110 preclude awards of punitive damages and damages for pre-death pain and suffering in a § 1983 action? 5. Did the trial court err in denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s negligence claims? 6. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in resolving discovery disputes?
|2 CA-CV 2009-0153||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Virginia C. Kelly|
|Audio Recording||SALICA v. TUCSON HEART HOSPITAL - CARONDELET, L.L.C.|
In this wrongful death action, did the trial court correctly determine that sufficient evidence of causation existed to support the jury’s verdict against the defendant hospital?
Wednesday May 19, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0174||Dept. A||2:00pm||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||ACOSTA v. PHOENIX INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY|
1. Did the trial court err by not instructing the jury on mistake pursuant to Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 185 Ariz. 104, 912 P.2d 1333 (App. 1995)? 2. Did the court comment on the evidence and err by instructing the jury based on State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Civil Service Employees Insurance Co., 19 Ariz. App. 594, 509 P.2d 725 (1973), that an insurer who believes it does not provide coverage and refuses a policy limits demand acts “at its peril”? 3. Is a jury instruction based on Fulton v. Woodford, 26 Ariz. App. 17, 545 P.2d 979 (1976), appropriate in a situation where coverage is disputed? 4. Is the defense of unclean hands available in an action based in law rather than equity?
Wednesday May 26, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0158||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA v. LAMB|
|Issue Summary: In an action to obtain a deficiency judgment, did the trial court err in dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit and ordering the matter to proceed in arbitration, according to the provisions of the parties’ contract?|
Wednesday June 02, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0187||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||BELLINFANTE v. FALCONER|
1. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant/appellee Falconer on plaintiff/appellant Bellinfante’s claim that the parties had entered into an implied contract to pool their resources and share in personal and real property accumulated during their relationship?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Bellinfante’s motion to amend his complaint, which he filed after judgment had been entered against him?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it granted summary judgment in favor of Falconer on her claim that Bellinfante wrongfully recorded a mechanic’s lien and when it awarded Falconer her attorney fees incurred in litigating that claim?
Friday June 18, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0183||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Stephen C. Villarreal|
|Audio Recording||SAGUARO RESERVE, LLC v. STANTEC CONSULTING, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Whether all claims pertaining to a single residential development project involving multiple subcontracts necessarily arise from the same transaction or occurrence such that when one party sues another, all claims the defendant has against the plaintiff must be asserted in that action as compulsory counterclaims, pursuant to Rule 13(a), Ariz. R. Civ. P.|
Wednesday June 23, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0155||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Virginia C. Kelly|
|Audio Recording||CHAPMAN; PORTER v. THURBER|
|Issue Summary: In a quiet title action, did the trial court err in granting defendants’ and denying plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to show their use of a disputed strip of land established a valid adverse possession claim?|
Wednesday July 21, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0186||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Stephen F. McCarville|
|Audio Recording||DOS PICOS LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SHEPARD v. PIMA COUNTY|
1. Whether a trial court may award attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-972(B) after finding a governmental entity had, through its administrative decisions and regulations, effected a taking of private property. 2. Whether the interest rate applicable to a civil judgment or that applicable to a condemnation proceeding applies to an award in an inverse condemnation proceeding.
Wednesday August 11, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0090||Dept. A||2:00pm||Pima||Stephen C. Villarreal|
|Audio Recording||PRESTON v. CITY OF TUCSON|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting decedent’s cellular telephone records? Was expert testimony properly admitted concerning the condition of the relevant bicycle path and whether decedent had been acting as a reasonable, prudent rider when he rode his bicycle on the sidewalk? Did the trial court properly preclude appellant from presenting evidence that the City of Tucson does not enforce its ordinance prohibiting bicycle riding on the sidewalk? Did the trial court err in giving the jury an “open and obvious” instruction?|
|2 CA-CR 2009-0341||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DANNY ALAN MASON|
|Issue Summary: Did the defendant’s two convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, based on his role as an accomplice to two principals who simultaneously assaulted a single victim with a baton and a baseball bat, violate the Double Jeopardy Clause? Did the trial court err in ordering that sentences on charges related to the assault should run consecutively with sentences related to the defendant’s later taking of a vehicle? Did the court improperly enhance his sentences on the aggravated assault convictions?|
Wednesday August 18, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2010-0053||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||LA PALOMA v. CATALINA FOOTHILLS UNIF. SCH. DIST. #16|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err when it found that a stipulated judgment to condemn certain property within a residential subdivision incorporated the parties’ agreement that the condemned property would have no vehicular access to the private roads within the subdivision?|
|2 CA-CV 2009-0163||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||CARDINAL & STACHEL, P.C. v. CURTISS; ESTATE OF LEELA CURTISS|
|Issue Summary: Whether the attorney fees incurred by one spouse in the course of a dissolution proceeding that does not end in divorce may be characterized as community debt.|
Wednesday August 25, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2010-0044||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||HAMILL v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment, concluding that a driver is not underinsured when the company providing her automobile liability insurance agrees, prior to judgment, to pay the total judgment or later settlement even if it exceeds the policy limit?|
Wednesday September 01, 2010
|2 CA-MH 2010-0001||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Craig A. Raymond|
|Audio Recording||IN RE PINAL COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. MH-201000029|
|Issue Summary: Did the two psychiatrists in this case comply with A.R.S. §§ 36-501(14), 36-533(B), and 36-539(B), which require that a proposed patient for court-ordered treatment receive a “complete physical examination” personally conducted by each evaluating physician, when their examinations were limited to interviewing the patient, reviewing his records, and observing his demeanor and physical presentation?|
Thursday September 16, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0177||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Christopher P. Staring|
|Audio Recording||DAMM v. BISCHOFF; DUFFIELD; DUFFIELD YOUNG ADAMSON, P.C.|
|Issue Summary: 1. Did the trial court err in granting appellees summary judgment after concluding: (1) appellant’s breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims fail because there was no material fact dispute as to whether appellees owed appellant a fiduciary duty; and (2) appellant’s negligence and negligent representation claims are barred by the statute of limitations because appellant discovered or should have discovered his causes of action more than two years before he filed the action? 2. Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s motion to amend his complaint based on its conclusion that the proposed amendment would be futile because the statute of limitations barred the additional cause of action?|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0079||Dept. A||3:30pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||LITTLE v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: In this medical malpractice action for wrongful death, did the trial court err in granting the state’s motion for summary judgment after concluding appellant had not filed a timely notice of claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.01? Should the court instead have found the equitable doctrines of estoppel or tolling applicable against the state?|
Thursday September 30, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2010-0083||Dept. A||3:00pm||College of Law||Pima||Michael O. Miller|
|Audio Recording||CITY OF TUCSON v. STATE OF ARIZONA; SOUTHERN ARIZONA LEADERSHIP COUNCIL; SENATOR JONATHAN PATON|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court correctly find that the 2009 amendments to A.R.S. § 9-821.01, regulating municipal elections, involved statewide concerns, or, rather, does the City of Tucson’s charter supersede the statute because the concerns involved are purely local?|
Wednesday October 13, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2010-0052||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||James A. Soto|
|Audio Recording||PHELPS v. GILBRAITH; WYSTRACH|
|Issue Summary: 1. Did the trial court err in finding appellant had failed to prove he had been damaged by appellee’s breach of the non-compete provision in the contract for the sale by appellee to appellant of appellee’s veterinary clinic? 2. Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s request for attorney fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341, given that appellant was awarded both declaratory relief and nominal damages?|
Wednesday October 20, 2010
|2 CA-CR 2009-0176||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||Wallace R. Hoggatt|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. BRIAN MANNIE BLAKLEY|
|Issue Summary: Were the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when the police officer entered an area of the driveway not ordinarily accessed by the public in order to conduct his investigation without a warrant?|
|2 CA-CR 2008-0377||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DOUGLAS LEE EDDINGTON|
1. In a homicide case investigated by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, did the trial court err, pursuant to Rule 18.4(b), Ariz. R. Crim. P., and A.R.S. § 21-211(2), in refusing to strike a venireman who was then employed as a Pima County Sheriff’s deputy, provided security at the superior court, knew up to half of the state’s witnesses from the sheriff’s department, and knew that the defendant was being held in custody?
2. Do the court’s jury instructions require reversal of the defendant’s conviction?
Wednesday November 03, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2010-0042||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||BUTTERFIELD PLAZA BENSON, L.L.C. v. JOHNSON; 4-R ENTERPRISES|
|Issue Summary: Whether lease provisions dealing in general with damage to or destruction of the premises “expressly” state that the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-343 do not apply to terminate the tenancy?|
Wednesday November 10, 2010
|2 CA-CR 2009-0114||Dept. A||2:00pm||Pima||Edgar B. Acuna|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MIGUEL DANIEL LEAL|
1. Did the trial court’s withdrawal of Leal’s counsel, due to his contemporaneous representation of Leal’s family members in civil matters, deprive him of his right to counsel of choice under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
2. Does the surreptitious recording by one spouse of a telephone call between spouses qualify for protection under the marital communications privilege? If so, does the exception allowing a spouse to be examined as a witness in cases where the other spouse is being prosecuted for, inter alia, dangerous crimes against children, apply to the marital communications privilege as well as the marital fact privilege?
Wednesday December 01, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2010-0100||Dept. A||2:00pm||Pinal||William J. O'Neil|
|Audio Recording||CENTEX HOMES v. PINAL COUNTY|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on its determination that Pinal County was prohibited from assessing development fees on plaintiffs’ development project?|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0071||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||CORTEZ; THE ESTATE OF FRANCES CORTEZ v. AVALON CARE CENTER, et al|
|Issue Summary: Did the appellee waive the right to compel arbitration by answering the appellant’s complaint and proceeding with litigation for nearly a year?|
Wednesday December 08, 2010
|2 CA-CR 2010-0193||Dept. B||1:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Boyd T. Johnson|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. HESAM MOHAJERIN|
1) Does A.R.S. § 13-4051 allow a petitioner to seek a notation of clearance on his criminal records on the ground that he is factually innocent? 2) Does A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) give this court jurisdiction over an appeal from a ruling on a petition for clearance, or may such a ruling only be reviewed by special action?
|2 CA-CV 2010-0073||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||James A. Soto|
|Audio Recording||MIIDAS GREENHOUSES, INVERNADEROS SANTA FE v. GLOBAL HORTICULTURAL|
|Issue Summary: Whether the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort when peat moss damaged grower’s seeds and resulted in crop failure.|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0028||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||BLAIR; SOUTHERN VENTURES, INC. v. BURGENER; TIGERLILLY|
(1) Whether the court erred in concluding the plaintiff had demonstrated that personal service was impracticable under Rule 4.1(m), Ariz. R. Civ. P., such that alternate service was appropriate, (2) whether the means of alternate service authorized by the court violated the defendants’ due process rights, and (3) whether the plaintiff sufficiently complied with the court’s order of alternate service.
Wednesday December 15, 2010
|2 CA-CV 2009-0175||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Gila||Peter J. Cahill|
|Audio Recording||SMITH v. BEESLEY; BOOTH|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in concluding the appellee had a right to enter and alter land within a subdivision’s drainage easement when the subdivision’s plat specified the land was to be used for “drainage purposes?” Did the court err in denying appellant relief under A.R.S. § 48-3613 , which provides a private right of action for the unauthorized alteration of a watercourse, when the appellee’s driveway and culvert were built without written authorization from the flood control district board, diverted a watercourse, and risked causing damage to the appellant’s property? Did the court err in awarding attorney fees to the appellee and denying appellant’s fee request?|
Wednesday January 12, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0059||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Michael O. Miller|
|Audio Recording||POLACEK v. UNITED FOOD GROUP, LLC|
|Issue Summary: In a wrongful termination action, did the trial court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the employer and concluded the employment contract was unambiguous, the employee was terminable at will, and no genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to those issues?|
Wednesday January 26, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0117 - 2 CA-CV 2010-0119 (consolidated)||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||FIVE POINTS HOTEL PARTNERSHIP, PARAGON HOTEL CORP. v. CASA GRANDE RESORT LIVING, PINSONNEAULT, et al|
|Issue Summary: Does sufficient evidence support the jury verdicts in favor of a partnership against two of its partners for breach of fiduciary duty, and did the trial court err in the admission of evidence and by denying the partners’ motion for judgment as a matter of law?|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0118||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||FIVE POINTS HOTEL PARTNERSHIP, PARAGON HOTEL CORP. v. JOE PINSONNEAULT, et al|
|Issue Summary: In this case arising from the sale of a hotel from a partnership to a limited liability company, did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the title company that handled the sale of the limited liability company on the partnership’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation?|
Wednesday February 16, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0151||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Michael J. Cruikshank|
|Audio Recording||ORINSKI v. ORINSKI|
|Issue Summary: Whether a marital settlement agreement could by its terms permit the court to modify the spousal maintenance awarded therein absent a showing of substantial and continuing changed circumstances as required by A.R.S. § 25-327. And, if not, did the trial court properly consider the factors required to modify the spousal support provisions of the marital settlement agreement.|
Wednesday March 02, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0150||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||RINCON v. RUMSEY, CITY OF TUCSON|
|Issue Summary: In a wrongful death action, did the trial court err in (1) permitting one defendant, over the objection of another defendant, to examine the plaintiffs about the cause of their son’s death or (2) allowing testimony about similar driving patterns of other motorists at the intersection where the decedent’s bicycle was struck? Did the trial court err in denying the objecting defendant’s motion for a new trial based on those alleged errors and additional allegations of an improper damages instruction, improper conduct by codefendant’s counsel, and a verdict that was the result of passion and prejudice?|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0023||Dept. A||3:00||IN COURT||Pima||Michael O. Miller|
|Audio Recording||METZLER v. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.|
|Issue Summary: In a negligence action, did the trial court err in granting a new trial on liability, but not on damages, based on allegedly improper remarks in appellee’s closing argument and the jury’s allocation of fault? Was the jury’s damages award the product of passion and prejudice?|
Wednesday March 16, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0125||Dept. A||2:00||IN COURT||Pinal||Gilberto V. Figueroa|
|Audio Recording||UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD v. D.R. HORTON, INC. - DIETZ-CRANE|
|Issue Summary: When a fatal accident occurred after appellant placed a water pipe across the surface of appellee’s property between a railroad track bed and an adjacent road, did the trial court err by denying appellant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and instructing the jury on punitive damages, determining there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude appellant had consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing it created a substantial risk of significant harm to the railroad?|
Wednesday March 23, 2011
|2 CA-SA 2011-0009||Dept. B||3:00||In Court||Pima||John S. Leonardo|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARK DWAYNE GANNON|
|Issue Summary: Whether a victim’s rights under Arizona’s Victim’s Bill of Rights terminate upon the defendant’s placement on probation.|
Wednesday April 20, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0176||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Gilberto V. Figueroa|
|Audio Recording||ORACLE HIGHLANDS, LLC v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Was the trial court precluded from granting summary judgment and quieting title in the disputed property because extrinsic evidence had been offered suggesting proposed language differing from that ultimately found in the operative document, perhaps the result of a drafting error, arguably reflected the true intent of the parties, requiring the document to be reformed?|
Wednesday April 27, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0067||Dept. B||2:00 pm||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||THE PARSONS CO., INC. v. DESERT PLANTS CONSERVANCY; AWD RANCH; LIPIN; PIERRON v. WALKER|
DPC v. Parsons
Whether this court has jurisdiction to address DPC’s appeal from the trial court’s orders: 1) granting partial judgment in favor of Parsons; 2) denying DPC’s motion for new trial; and 3) bifurcating the trials of the easement-related issues from the water-rights related issues.
DPC v. The Walkers
1) Whether the trial court erred in: 1) dismissing DPC’s cross-claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation against the Walkers as time barred; 2) granting summary judgment in the Walkers’ favor on DPC’s cross-claims of breach of contract and breach of warranty; and 3) granting summary judgment in favor of the Walkers on their claims against DPC for negligent misrepresentation and fraud-in-the-inducement.
|2 CA-CV 2010-0195||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Navajo||John N. Lamb|
|Audio Recording||GQR ENTERPRISES, LLC v. ARMEL LAND INVESTORS, LLC|
|Issue Summary: 1) Did the trial court err in refusing to construe contract terms as a matter of law, instead submitting those terms to the jury; 2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of damages; and 3) did the trial court err in denying Armel Land Investors’ motion for new trial?|
Wednesday May 04, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0112||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Stephen C. Villarreal|
|Audio Recording||CHAVEZ v. ARIZONA SCHOOL RISK RETENTION TRUST, INC.|
Are students waiting in line to board a school bus using the vehicle with permission, as defined in A.R.S. § 28-4009(A)(2), thereby requiring a policy’s underinsured motorist insurance provision to cover them pursuant to A.R.S. § 29-259.01(B)?
Alternatively, are the students covered parties for the purposes of liability under the insurance policy and, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the underinsured motorist provision pursuant to § 29-259.01(B)?
Wednesday May 11, 2011
|2 CA-CR 2007-0244||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Nanette M. Warner|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RONALD BRUCE BIGGER|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by denying appellant’s request for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, admitting testimony offering probability analyses of DNA evidence, and precluding evidence of thirdparty culpability?|
Wednesday May 18, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0120 - 2 CA-CV 2010-0172 (consolidated)||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Howard Hantman|
|Audio Recording||GIBBS v. GIBBS|
1. Did the trial court err in determining that claim preclusion barred a mother’s petition to reinstate child-support for her adult disabled daughter under A.R.S. § 25-320(E) and in finding that the adult disabled daughter was not a party to the proceeding?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering the father to pay one half of the mother’s attorney fees and in holding him solely responsible for guardian ad litem fees incurred by daughter?
Wednesday June 01, 2011
|2 CA-CR 2010-0235||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Christopher C. Browning|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RICKY GRAY|
|Issue Summary: Whether a conviction for tampering with a witness under A.R.S. § 13-2804 requires proof that a person had actually unlawfully withheld testimony, testified falsely, or failed to obey a summons as a result of the defendant’s conduct.|
Wednesday June 08, 2011
|2 CA-SA 2011-0031||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Pima||John S. Leonardo|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARK DWAYNE GANNON|
|Issue Summary: In the underlying prosecution against the defendant/real party in interest for sexual offenses he allegedly committed against his minor daughter, did the respondent judge abuse his discretion by restricting, pursuant to Rules 702 and 403, Ariz. R. Evid., the proposed testimony of petitioner State of Arizona’s expert witness on the subject of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, essentially precluding her from testifying unless she relies only on studies involving children who alleged they had been sexually abused and whose sexual abuse had been corroborated by independent evidence?|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0222||Dept. A||3:00||In Court||Pima||Stephen C. Villarreal|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA; ARIZONA STATE LAND DEPT. v. ROBINSON CATTLE, LLC|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in quieting fee title in the State of Arizona to a disputed parcel for which it holds a federal patent, but as to which defendant Robinson Cattle, LLC asserted fee ownership and other property rights based on longstanding use of the parcel by its predecessors? Did the court err in dismissing Robinson’s takings counterclaim with prejudice, and its counterclaims relating to water rights and rights to improvements on the parcel without prejudice so that Robinson could pursue appropriate administrative remedies? Did the court err in awarding the state its attorney fees?|
Wednesday June 15, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0190||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||WISE v. CITY OF TUCSON|
|Issue Summary: Was there a genuine a material issue of fact regarding the liability of the City of Tucson for the death of appellant’s daughter that precluded the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in its favor, and is the city entitled to statutory immunity under A.R.S. §§ 12-820.01 or 12-820.03?|
Wednesday July 27, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0010||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||Kimberly A. Corsaro|
|Audio Recording||TUMACACORI MISSION LAND DEVELOPMENT, LTD. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.|
|Issue Summary: Whether article 15, § 10 of the Arizona Constitution, which declares railways to be public highways, prevents a private party from obtaining a prescriptive easement across a railway.|
Wednesday August 17, 2011
|2 CA-IC 2010-0016||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||ICA Claim||LuAnn Haley|
|Audio Recording||STENZ v. CITY OF TUCSON and PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES|
In this appeal from the denial of workers’ compensation widow’s benefits, did the administrative law judge err by accepting certain medical testimony of a witness, by failing to apply the “unexplained death presumption,” and by refusing to allow an additional medical expert to testify?
Wednesday September 07, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0188||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||DELMASTRO & EELLS v. TACO BELL CORP.|
1. Did the trial court err in finding appellant’s mechanic’s lien invalid and dismissing its foreclosure count on summary judgment? 2. Assuming appellant’s mechanic’s lien was invalid, did appellant’s knowledge or “reason to know” of the invalidity present a factual question that precluded entry of summary judgment on appellee’s counterclaim under A.R.S. § 33-420(A)?
Wednesday September 14, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0208||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||KEREGE v. VISCOUNT HOTEL GROUP|
|Issue Summary: In a wrongful death action brought by the beneficiaries of the decedent who died following a fall at appellant’s hotel, did the trial court err in admitting evidence of similar subsequent accidents, admitting photographs of decedent after the fall, precluding arguments about the absence of prior accidents, and refusing to give certain jury instructions the hotel requested? Was a new trial warranted because of counsel’s alleged misconduct during closing argument?|
|2 CA-CV 2010-0167||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Graham||R. Douglas Holt|
|Audio Recording||COLVIN v. GRAHAM COUNTY|
1. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment precluding the appellants’ claims against appellee Graham County on the basis that appellants’ notice of claim was untimely under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B).
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding appellants’ notice of claim provided insufficient facts under § 12-821.01(A) to notify the County of their claim of inverse condemnation.
3. Whether the Federal or Arizona Constitutions bar application of § 12-821.01 to claims for inverse condemnation.
|2 CA-CV 2011-0025||Dept. B||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||Stephen C. Villarreal|
|Audio Recording||TDB TUCSON GROUP, L.L.C. v. CITY OF TUCSON|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City of Tucson on TDB’s claim that the City was obligated to provide water service to TDB’s Painted Hills subdivision, located outside the City’s corporate boundaries, on the basis of the court’s finding under A.R.S. § 45-402(31)(a) and case law that the property was not located within the City’s service area.|
Wednesday September 21, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0001||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||JACKSON v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.|
Whether A.R.S. § 20-259.01 required an insurer to offer uninsured motorist coverage to a garage owner in connection with a comprehensive general liability policy that included a garage liability endorsement.
Wednesday October 05, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0013||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||William J. O'Neil|
|Audio Recording||PINAL COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT v. CARDEST JAMES|
|Issue Summary: Whether the Pinal County Employee Merit System Commission erred when it found the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office did not present sufficient evidence to prove an officer’s actions warranted discipline.|
|2 CA-CV 2011-0040||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||AUSTIN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALDECOA, DENOGEAN...|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in determining the separate acts of both insureds that contributed to the drowning deaths of their grandchildren were two qualifying occurrences under their insurance policy?|
Wednesday October 12, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0197||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||NICKERSON, et al v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Is a covenant to pay fees and bind a homeowner’s real property as consideration for membership in a community recreational facility a valid servitude that runs with the land? Is such a covenant or servitude binding as to a successor homeowner who has actual notice of the covenant, in the absence of a recorded document in that homeowner’s record chain of title? Is an agreement creating such a covenant an unconscionable contract on the ground that it permits membership fees to be increased at the discretion of the recreational facility’s board of directors? Is the agreement that creates such a covenant illusory or unilateral on the ground that mutuality of obligation is lacking because the owner of the community recreation facility has the right to modify terms of the agreement but the homeowner does not?|
Wednesday October 19, 2011
|2 CA-IC 2010-0012||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||ICA Claim||Thomas A. Ireson|
|Audio Recording||STUTZMAN v. ICA, TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT|
|Issue Summary: Did the Administrative Law Judge err in reversing his previous award and finding the claimant was not entitled to unscheduled permanent partial disability benefits because he had failed to overcome the presumption created by his post-injury earnings, thereby failing to establish a loss in earning capacity?|
|2 CA-CV 2011-0039||Dept. B||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||BROWN v. FRANK, LISA FRANK, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s claims arose under federal patent law?|
Thursday October 20, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0026||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||Stephen M. Desens|
|Audio Recording||INTER K N.V. v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on both liability and damages in favor of the bailor, Inter K, on a claim the bailee, UPS, breached the bailment contract by the unauthorized delivery of 450 cases of cigarettes to a third party?|
Wednesday October 26, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0029||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||William J. O'Neil|
|Audio Recording||JONOVICH COMPANIES, INC. v. CITY OF COOLIDGE|
(1) Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City of Coolidge on Jonovich’s breach of contract claim based upon an implied warranty of design adequacy under United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), where the court found Jonovich deviated from the City’s design specifications for the construction project and such deviation was not entirely irrelevant to the defective construction.
(2) Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City of Coolidge on Jonovich’s alternative claim that the City was unjustly enriched by Jonovich’s repair of the defective construction, on the basis of the court’s finding that the original contract between the City and Jonovich as a matter of law was not invalid and had not been modified.
Wednesday November 02, 2011
|2 CA-IC 2011-0006||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||ICA Claim||LuAnn Haley|
|Audio Recording||JOSEPH R. TAYLOR v. DOLLAR GENERAL MISSON RDG. and NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO./AVIZENT|
|Issue Summary: Did the administrative law judge (ALJ) err in determining the claimant did not prove that his peroneal nerve injury was caused by his workplace accident? Did the unexplained-injury or positional-risk doctrines entitle the claimant to a presumption that the injury was caused by his fall at work? Did the ALJ err by refusing to consider or allow additional evidence after it had issued its decision and award? And did the parties’ development of evidence at the hearing require the ALJ to make findings on issues outside the express scope of the hearing?|
|2 CA-CR 2008-0342||Dept. B||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||John S. Leonardo|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RANDALL D. WEST and PENNY A. WEST|
|Issue Summary: In this prosecution for child abuse, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3623(A)(1), did the trial court err in granting the defendants/foster parents’ post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal based on its conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove whether one or both of the defendants had caused or permitted the child’s injury?|
Wednesday November 09, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2010-0149||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Charles V. Harrington|
|Audio Recording||IN THE ESTATE OF MARY A. RILEY, aka MARY AGNES RILEY, aka MARY AGNES REILLY|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-3952 when it approved compromises between an estate’s personal representative and some, but not all, of the beneficiaries of the estate and not all of the beneficiaries signed the compromise?|
|2 CA-CR 2011-0064||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. LINDA ANN SIPLIVY|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court erred in failing to place the defendant on mandatory probation pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01 for the six non-methamphetamine offenses of which she was convicted.|
Wednesday November 16, 2011
|2 CA-CR 2010-0382||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Christopher C. Browning|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MICHAEL JONATHON CARLSON|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in suppressing the defendant’s statements made during a custodial interrogation when detectives never provided the advisory required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and the defendant’s own attempted recitation of that advisory did not specify that he had the right to the presence of an attorney both before and during any questioning?|
Wednesday November 30, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0053||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||GOODMAN v. PHYSICAL RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the plaintiff project owner present sufficient evidence that an implied contract existed between the defendant subcontractor hired by the project owner’s general building contractor, either directly or based on an agency theory?|
|2 CA-CV 2011-0074||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Graham||R. Douglas Holt|
|Audio Recording||FREEPORT MCMORAN CORPORATION v. LANGLEY EDEN FARMS, LLC|
|Issue Summary: Were the parties required to utilize administrative remedies before bringing an action in superior court? If not, does Langley have standing to challenge the zoning status of Freeport’s land? If so, is Freeport’s transload facility exempt from zoning as being for mining, metallurgical or railroad purposes under A.R.S. § 11-812? Additionally, did a genuine issue of material fact exist regarding claims that Freeport’s planned facility created an anticipatory nuisance and an invasion of Langley’s properties?|
|2 CA-CR 2011-0124||Dept. A||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||Deborah Bernini|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. AARON RAYMOND FIKES|
|Issue Summary: May a police officer obtain reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory stop of an automobile based solely on the fact that one of multiple brake lights is not working?|
Wednesday December 07, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0004 - 2 CA-CV 2011-0092 (consolidated)||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||Stephen M. Desens|
|Audio Recording||FORSBERG v. OSUMI; RADIOLOGY SPECIALIST OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA|
Did a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether the terms of the contract established the parties had set a base value for the practice when the parties listed previously held life-insurance policies in a portion of the contract at the signing without holding a required meeting of members?
Wednesday December 14, 2011
|2 CA-CV 2011-0064||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||BREMER v. GONZALEZ, DU-BROOK DAIRY, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did plaintiffs present sufficient evidence of a causal link between the decedent’s injuries and his death to preclude summary judgment, and did the trial court err in finding as a matter of law that the actions of the decedent’s physician were an intervening and superseding cause of his death?|
|2 CA-CR 2011-0028||Dept. A||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||John S. Leonardo|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RICHARD LEE PALMER|
|Issue Summary: Was testimony, elicited by the state about an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement suggesting an item located in the defendant’s hospital room was his, inadmissible hearsay? If so, was the testimony otherwise admissible because the defendant “opened the door” to the area of inquiry?|
Wednesday January 11, 2012
|2 CA-CR 2011-0126||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON|
(1) When the defendant possessed seven separate images of child pornography on one DVD, did the imposition of seven consecutive, ten-year terms of imprisonment violate constitutional or statutory prohibitions against multiple punishments?
(2) Did the mandatory consecutive sentences required here by A.R.S. § 13-705 amount to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by article II, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution?
(3) Does § 13-705 violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection by punishing the possession of child pornography more severely than other dangerous crimes against children that are committed directly against children?
|2 CA-CV 2011-0076||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||Kimberly A. Corsaro|
|Audio Recording||DAYKA & HACKETT, LLC v. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., INC.,|
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to Dayka & Hackett, LLC (D&H) on its claims of lien priority and conversion regarding crops and their proceeds marketed and sold by Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.?
Specifically, did the court err by determining:
1) the growers of crops raised in Mexico were “located” in Washington, D.C., for purposes of perfection pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-9307(C);
2) Del Monte did not have a “right of recoupment” pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-9404; and
3) A.R.S. §§ 47-9610 and 47-9615 did not preclude Del Monte’s liability for conversion?
Wednesday January 18, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0080||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Richard E. Gordon|
|Audio Recording||BAKER v. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE, WITTMAN, ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in finding A.R.S. § 12-2604 did not permit a specialist in internal medicine with subspecialties in oncology and hematology to testify as to the standard of care for a specialist in pediatrics with a subspecialty in pediatric hematology/oncology? If not, does § 12-2604 violate the Anti-Abrogation, Equal Protection, or Due Process Clauses of the Arizona Constitution?|
|2 CA-SA 2011-0091||Dept. B||3:00p.m.||Pima||Kyle A. Bryson|
|Audio Recording||THE SALVATION ARMY; KELLEY v. BENNETT|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge abuse his discretion by failing to apply Arizona’s attorney-client privilege, A.R.S. § 12-2234, and ordering a corporate defendant to produce redacted summaries of investigative interviews conducted, at the direction of counsel, with its employees and volunteers who had been present at the scene of plaintiff’s accident, the subject of the underlying lawsuit?|
Wednesday January 25, 2012
|2 CA-CR 2010-0164||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Christopher C. Browning|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RONALD KELLY YOUNG|
|Issue Summary: 1. Was there sufficient evidence supporting Young’s convictions for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder even though the evidence was entirely circumstantial? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Young’s motion to dismiss the case for pre-indictment delay based on the time between when he was first suspected of the crime and when he was charged twelve years later? 3. Was it error for the trial court to deny Young’s motions to suppress evidence on the grounds he was subjected to an unlawful inventory search after his arrest, the scope of his consent to search did not cover his electronic media, and the trial court improperly applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery to the evidence on his laptop computer? 4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence about a shotgun found in a van Young had rented and abandoned? 5. Was it an abuse its discretion for the trial court to deny his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct based on a juror’s incorrect answer on a questionnaire? 6. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial based on surprise witness testimony implicating Young in the murder?|
Wednesday February 01, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0027||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Cochise||Stephen M. Desens|
|Audio Recording||RICHARD ANDERSON v. VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT #22|
|Issue Summary: 1. In general, may a teacher appeal a disciplinary decision of a school district’s governing board beyond the superior court? 2. Is a teacher’s ten-day suspension without pay appealable to any court?|
Wednesday February 08, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0081||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||GARIBY v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC.|
Did Maya Gariby, a child who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while using a child safety seat sold and manufactured by appellee Evenflo Company Inc.’s predecessor, present sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on her claims for successor liability for failure of its post-sale duty to warn, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and joint venture?
Did the trial court err in denying Gariby’s discovery request for documents related to a different proceeding involving the same model of child seat?
Wednesday February 15, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0108||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||KAZ CONSTRUCTION, INC v. SIERRA COBRE ESTATES, LLC|
Did the trial court err in determining a trust beneficiary was without authority to execute a deed of trust conveying the trust res to appellants and, therefore, it was invalid?
Did the court err in determining further that appellee had a valid first-position mechanic’s lien on the property?
|2 CA-CV 2011-0072||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Charles V. Harrington|
|Audio Recording||IN RE THE ESTATE OF FRED N. KIRKES|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by invalidating a beneficiary designation of more than fifty percent of an individual retirement account, reasoning that appellee was entitled to fifty percent as her share of community property?|
|2 CA-CV 2011-0083||Dept. B||4:00pm||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||AMANTI ELECTRIC, INC. v. ENGINEERED STRUCTURES, INC., WESTERN SURETY COMPANY|
Wednesday February 29, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0129||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P. v. SEMPER INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.|
Wednesday March 21, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0117||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||James A. Soto|
|Audio Recording||DESSAROLLO IMMOBILIARIO Y NEGOCIOS INDUSTRIALES DE ALTA TECNOLOGIA DE HERMOSILLO v. KADER HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED|
|Issue Summary: 1. Whether the trial court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over appellant based on a forum selection clause in a lease agreement signed by appellant as guarantor when the separate guarantee did not also provide that Arizona was a proper forum for litigation. 2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against appellant for the tenant’s breach of the underlying lease agreement when the lease had been modified to extend the lease term and to change the payment arrangements under the lease.|
Wednesday March 28, 2012
|2 CA-CR 2011-0214||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Jane L. Eikleberry|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAIME RENE ESPINOZA|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice an indictment alleging defendant’s failure to register as a sex offender on the ground that the order first requiring him to register had been void.|
|2 CA-CV 2011-0107||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Scott Rash|
|Audio Recording||VAN HEESWYK v. JABIRU AIRCRAFT PTY., LTD.|
|Issue Summary: In a wrongful death action brought by the surviving family members of a deceased Arizona pilot, did the trial court err by ruling Arizona did not have personal jurisdiction over an Australian aircraft manufacturer, Jabiru Pty., Ltd., when it does not have offices or employees in Arizona but sells its products in the state through its exclusive North American distributors?|
Wednesday April 11, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0140||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||Charles A. Irwin|
|Audio Recording||GRUBB v. DO IT BEST CORPORATION|
|Issue Summary: Does a cooperative qualify as a seller for purposes of product liability when a member store ordered the product directly from the vendor in a drop-ship order, but the vendor sent the bill to the cooperative?|
|2 CA-CR 2010-0380||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Deborah Bernini|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES DARRELL JOHNSON|
|Issue Summary: 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in precluding Johnson from presenting diminished capacity evidence pursuant to State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 931 P.2d 1046 (1997), and A.R.S. § 13-502, when that evidence was relevant to rebut the state’s allegation of aggravating factors? 2. Does law of the case prevent Johnson from rearguing that double jeopardy precluded the state from alleging aggravating factors against him?|
|2 CA-CV 2011-0126||Dept. A||4:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Bradley M. Soos|
|Audio Recording||FETTERS v. STEWART TITLE & TRUST OF PHOENIX, INC.|
Did appellant waive the opportunity to challenge the validity of a trustee’s sale pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-811(C) by failing before the sale occurred to file for injunctive relief?
Did the trial court err by awarding attorney fees to the trustee?
Wednesday May 02, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0133||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Scott Rash|
|Audio Recording||METZLER v. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in awarding prejudgment interest pursuant to Rule 68(g), Ariz. R. Civ. P., from the date of the offer of judgment to the date of a judgment vacated by the grant of a new trial, rather than to the date of the subsequent judgment on mandate?|
Tuesday May 15, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2012-0069||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Richard E. Gordon|
|Audio Recording||DEVINE and BOSTON v. RANDOLPH; CAMPUS ACQUISITIONS HOLDINGS|
1. Whether the appellants were required to comply “substantially” or “strictly” with the referendum filing requirements?
2. Whether the superior court erred in determining appellants failed to meet either standard?
3. If appellants failed to comply with the referendum filing requirements, can such noncompliance be excused by appellants’ use of the petition form provided by the City Clerk?
Wednesday May 23, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0193||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Gilberto V. Figueroa|
|Audio Recording||TA ROBINSON EQUIPMENT CO. v. JCB, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in compelling arbitration when, despite the parties’ dealership agreement’s provision requiring arbitration, another of the agreement’s provisions arguably preserved appellant’s right to maintain its legal action under A.R.S. § 44-6708? Are all of appellant’s claims covered by the arbitration provision?|
Wednesday June 13, 2012
|2 CA-JV 2012-0007||Dept. B||2:00p.m.||Pima||Gus Aragon|
|Audio Recording||LISA K. v. ADES and JULIAN N.|
Is A.R.S. § 8-862 facially unconstitutional because it permits the same judge who directs the Department of Economic Security to file a motion to terminate a parent’s rights to preside over the hearing on that motion and decide whether to grant it?
|2 CA-CR 2011-0076||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Cochise||Ann R. Littrell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. XAVIER HIPOLITO ESTRELLA|
Tuesday July 03, 2012
|2 CA-SA 2012-0034||Dept. A||10:00 a.m.||Pima||Clark W. Munger|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ABIGAIL ALETA ALLIN|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge err by determining that the state’s revocation of a plea pursuant to Rule 17.4(b), Ariz. R. Crim. P., was unconstitutional and by ordering the plea be reinstated?|
Wednesday August 01, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0134||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||PATTERSON v. THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS|
|Issue Summary: 1. In the absence of a signed order or decision by a superior court, can an appeal ever be untimely? 2. When a university has suspended a student upon finding two violations of its code of conduct, does a legal error in one of the two findings have any effect on the university’s disciplinary decision? 3. Was the university’s finding here legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed a sexual assault?|
Wednesday August 22, 2012
|2 CA-IC 2012-0001||Dept. B||2:00p.m.||ICA Claim||LuAnn Haley|
|Audio Recording||JOSE A. ESCOBAR v. MARSHALL FOUNDATION and PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT|
|Issue Summary: Whether, in light of Rodgers v. Industrial Commission, 109 Ariz. 216, 508 P.2d 46 (1973), this court should abrogate its decision in Hoosava v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ariz. App. 6, 398 P.2d 683 (1965), in which we concluded that multiple impairments to one extremity resulting from a single industrial injury are to be compensated as scheduled pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1044(B).|
|2 CA-CV 2012-0015||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||Pima||Jan E. Kearney|
|Audio Recording||BRUINS v. DESERT VILLA ADULT CARE, INC....|
|Issue Summary: In a medical malpractice action against an assisted living facility and its caregivers, does an occupational therapist qualify as an expert pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2604?|
Tuesday September 04, 2012
|2 CA-MH 2012-0005||Dept. B||1:30pm||In Court||Pima||Julia Connors|
|Audio Recording||IN RE PIMA COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. MH20100837|
|Issue Summary: Where a patient has been ordered to undergo mental health treatment, whether a trial court can order a medical director to provide it with proof of compliance with the statutory requirement under A.R.S. § 36-546(B), that the patient has been notified of his right to periodic judicial review and to confer with counsel, and to send a copy of such proof to the patient’s attorney.|
Wednesday September 05, 2012
|2 CA-SA 2012-0044||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||MIKEL LO, M.D. and MIKEL W. LO, M.D, INC. v. MILLS|
|Issue Summary: In plaintiff’s medical malpractice action, did the respondent judge err in determining that plaintiff’s designated standard-of-care expert met the requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2604(A)(1)?|
|2 CA-SA 2012-0052||Dept. A||4:00 p.m.||Pima||Teresa Godoy|
|Audio Recording||ARTURO DURAZO v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge err in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds after the respondent declared a mistrial sua sponte and without petitioner’s consent, after having concluded there was a manifest necessity for the mistrial?|
Wednesday September 12, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2012-0040||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Jeffrey T. Bergin|
|Audio Recording||MM&A PRODUCTIONS, L.L.C. V. YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION, YAVAPAI-APACHE NATIONS CLIFF CASTLE CASINO, et al|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion made pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., seeking a delayed appeal after the court had nullified the order appellant’s counsel relied on for docketing the time to appeal?|
Wednesday September 19, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2012-0037||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||GORMAN v. PIMA COUNTY|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Pima County on plaintiffs’ breach of contract and estoppel claims based on its finding that: 1) the parties did not have an enforceable contract for the funding and construction of a county project; and, 2) the county was not estopped from denying any obligation to return the funds the plaintiffs had paid for the design and construction of the project.|
Monday September 24, 2012
|2 CA-SA 2012-0060||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||Pinal||Joseph R. Georgini|
|Audio Recording||ELIZABETH W. v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge have the authority to order a patient undergoing involuntary, court-ordered treatment to submit to drug testing when the patient admitted she had used marijuana in violation of her treatment plan?|
Wednesday October 17, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2011-0153||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kyle A. Bryson|
|Audio Recording||BELEN LOAN INVESTORS, LLC v. MYERS, BAUMGARDNER, LOS LUNA HIGHLANDS|
|Issue Summary: In a professional negligent misrepresentation action, did the trial court err in finding as a matter of law that a property developer’s appraiser owed no duty to third-party lenders who allegedly relied upon the appraisal to make loans for the property’s purchase and development, and in therefore dismissing the lenders’ claims against the appraiser? Did the court abuse its discretion in subsequently denying the lenders’ motion to amend their complaint?|
Wednesday November 07, 2012
|2 CA-CR 2011-0169||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Christopher C. Browning|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. NELSON E. NOTTINGHAM|
|Issue Summary: What effect, if any, does Perry v. New Hampshire, ___U.S.___, 132 S. Ct. (2012), have in modifying Arizona Supreme Court jurisprudence addressing (1) whether a defendant is entitled to a Dessureault hearing when the suggestive pretrial identification procedure occurs at a court proceeding and is therefore not arranged by police, and (2) whether a defendant remains entitled to an identification instruction under such circumstances even if not entitled to a Dessureault hearing?|
|2 CA-CR 2011-0340 - 2 CA-CR 2011-0386,2 CA-CR 2011-0391 (consolidated)||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Jane L. Eikleberry|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARCUS DESHAUN TUCKER, CLIFTON JAMES CUTTLER II and ANDRE LAVELLE ARMSTRONG|
Does the test set forth in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), for a violation of the constitutional right to a public trial apply to a partial closure of a criminal trial where all members of the public except the press were excluded from the proceedings?
Did the trial court reversibly err by closing appellants’ trial to all members of the public except the press without making any specific findings or considering any less restrictive alternatives?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE SUMMARY IN STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANDRE LAVELLE ARMSTRONG CR 2011-0391:
Did the trial court err in denying Armstrong’s motions for a judgment of acquittal on charges of conspiracy and misuse of body armor?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Armstrong’s motions to sever his trial from that of his codefendants?
Wednesday November 28, 2012
|2 CA-CV 2012-0019||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Bradley M. Soos|
|Audio Recording||GROSVENOR HOLDINGS, K. HOVNANIAN GREAT WESTERN HOMES and TOUSA HOMES v. PINAL COUNTY|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by determining as a matter of law that a development agreement (1) required Pinal County to extend the agreement and (2) waived fees only during the agreement’s term? Would an extension of the agreement violate Arizona’s Gift Clause, Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 7? Is Pinal County’s development fee ordinance invalid pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-1102?|
Wednesday January 09, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0090||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Gilberto V. Figueroa|
|Audio Recording||CHAMPLIN; STOPINSKI, SKIPTON AND ASSOC. v. BANK OF AMERICA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by refusing to set aside the entry of default, pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., even if a copy of the application for the entry of default had not been mailed in a timely fashion?|
Wednesday January 30, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0125||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||MACKINNEY v. CITY OF TUCSON|
1) In a negligence action brought by a plaintiff injured while playing golf on a city-owned golf course, did the trial court err in determining that a golf course is not a “premises” under Arizona’s recreational-use immunity statute, A.R.S. § 33-1551?
2) Did the trial court err in concluding an issue of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff was a “recreational user” of the golf course under the statute, thus precluding entry of summary judgment?
Wednesday February 06, 2013
|2 CA-SA 2012-0070||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||Pima||Peter J. Cahill|
|Audio Recording||ROOSEVELT ARTHUR WILLIAMS v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: After a hearing conducted in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-753(G), did the respondent judge err or abuse his discretion in ruling that Williams had failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, an intellectual disability that renders him ineligible for the death penalty in his pending prosecution for murder?|
|2 CA-SA 2012-0076||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||CALISTO MARIKO WELLS v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering a defendant to disclose to the state recordings of interviews with police witnesses, conducted without the prosecutor's knowledge, when he intended to use the material solely for impeachment?|
Wednesday February 20, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0129||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Scott Rash|
|Audio Recording||TOBER v. CIVANO I: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al|
|Issue Summary: In a planned-community member’s challenge to the community board-of-directors election, alleging the board’s mail-in ballot procedure breached A.R.S. § 33-1812, did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against the member on grounds she lacked standing to bring her claim where she had alleged no particularized damages and failed to bring her claim as a shareholder-derivative action?|
Wednesday April 17, 2013
|2 CA-SA 2013-0011||Dept. B||10:00 a.m.||Pima||Michael O. Miller|
|Audio Recording||LEO ZACKY v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge err in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss his prosecution for driving with a drug in his system, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3), pursuant to Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 through 36-2819?|
Wednesday April 24, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0111||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Scott Rash|
|Audio Recording||PIMA COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES|
|Issue Summary: Did the superior court err in affirming in part and remanding the Arizona Department of Health Services’ denial of the Pima County Human Rights Committee's request, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-3804(l), for information regarding deaths of persons enrolled in the mental health system?|
|2 CA-CV 2012-0085 - 2 CA-CV 2012-0086 (consolidated)||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Bradley M. Soos|
|Audio Recording||DELO v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, U.S. BANK, N.A.|
|Issue Summary: In this quiet title action, did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee who had obtained a treasurer’s deed to the property following a tax-lien foreclosure lawsuit, where: (1) appellee had neither given notice to or joined appellants as parties in the foreclosure lawsuit; (2) appellant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) had been designated nominee for the lender and lender’s successors and assigns, beneficiary, and legal title holder, under a deed of trust recorded before the foreclosure lawsuit; (3) appellant GMAC’s interest in the property as assignee of the original lender’s interest had not been recorded but was registered on MERS’s electronic records; and, (4) appellee had filed a lis pendens indicating the foreclosure action had been filed?|
Wednesday May 08, 2013
|2 CA-CR 2012-0287||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MANUEL ALEJANDRO DELGADO|
|Issue Summary: Is A.R.S. § 13-1204(B)(1), which provides that a person commits aggravated assault by “imped[ing] the normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person,” unconstitutionally vague? Did the trial court err by denying Delgado’s motion to preclude the testimony of a “strangulation expert” pursuant to Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid.? Was Delgado deprived of his right to a unanimous jury verdict because of a duplicitous indictment or charge?|
Wednesday June 05, 2013
|2 CA-CR 2012-0155||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Christopher C. Browning|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARTIN DAVID SALAZAR-MERCADO|
|Issue Summary: Does Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid., require the per se preclusion of an expert witness who intends to provide general testimony without applying her principles and methods to the facts of the case? Did the trial court err in admitting a victim’s prior inconsistent statement to a police detective as substantive evidence?|
Wednesday July 10, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0063 - 2 CA-CV 2012-0157 (consolidated)||Dept. B||2:00||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||COHEN v. LOVITT & TOUCHE, INC.|
|Issue Summary: 1. Did the trial court err in determining Arizona public policy categorically bars insurance coverage of restitutionary payments? 2. Did the trial court err in determining payments made in the settlement of a class action were restitutionary in nature?|
Tuesday August 06, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0093||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Scott Rash|
|Audio Recording||ARIZONA MEDICAL BUILDINGS, LLC, TRUITT v. CHASM INVESTMENTS, LLC, TRUITT|
|Issue Summary: 1) Did the trial court err in determining only one of the quitclaim deeds at issue effectively transferred property? 2) Did the trial court err in determining a contract did not exist for the sale of appellant’s medical practice? 3) Did the trial court err in not granting judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50, Ariz. R. Civ. P., or vacating the verdict pursuant to Rule 59(a)(8), Ariz. R. Civ. P., on appellant’s wrongful filing of a lis pendens claim? 4) Did the trial court give an erroneous jury instruction on appellant’s lis pendens claim? 5) Did the trial court err in denying appellant attorney fees pursuant to contract or A.R.S. § 12-341.01? 6) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not admitting the affidavits of a witness offered for impeachment? 7) Did the trial court err by awarding damages on appellee’s quiet title claims, and by quieting title to personal property? 8) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not offsetting appellant’s costs of maintaining the real property against appellee’s award of damages? 9) Did the trial court err in denying appellee attorney fees pursuant to contract or § 12-341.01?|
Wednesday August 07, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0173||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Gus Aragon|
|Audio Recording||MARISOL METZLER v. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF LOS ANGELES|
|Issue Summary: When applying A.R.S. § 44-1201, did the trial court err in determining that prejudgment interest imposed as a sanction under Rule 68(g), Ariz. R. Civ. P., was interest on an obligation calculated at ten percent per annum pursuant to subsection (A) and not interest on a judgment calculated at one percent plus the prime rate pursuant to subsection (B)?|
Wednesday August 14, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2013-0005||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Jan E. Kearney|
|Audio Recording||FIRST CREDIT UNION v. COURTNEY|
|Issue Summary: 1) Does a lender bring an action for a deficiency judgment under A.R.S. § 33-814 prematurely when it has not exhausted all of its collateral? 2) Does A.R.S. § 33-814(G) prevent a creditor from obtaining a deficiency judgment on residential property when the creditor has not conducted a trustee’s sale of the property and creditor’s loan was not a purchase money loan? 3) Does the extinguishment of the principal borrower’s debt under A.R.S. § 33-814(D) preclude recovery against a guarantor when an action was timely maintained against the guarantor under § 33-814(A)?|
|2 CA-CV 2012-0168||Dept. A||3:00pm||In Court||Gila||Peter J. Cahill|
|Audio Recording||RAY SAYER and KORI SAYER v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: In this negligence action arising out of a motorcycle collision with an elk on a state highway, did the trial court err in admitting evidence of studies and construction projects the defendant State of Arizona had conducted and costs of the same to prevent wildlife-vehicle collisions on other Arizona state highways?|
Wednesday August 21, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0175||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Santa Cruz||James A. Soto|
|Audio Recording||GLOBAL MUSIC SUPPLY, LLC v. PRESTINI INTERNATIONAL, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by refusing to quash a writ of garnishment where the debtor alleged the writ failed to satisfy due process requirements by failing to properly name the garnishee?|
Wednesday September 04, 2013
|2 CA-SA 2013-0057||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Deborah Bernini|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DEBBIE LYNN COPELAND|
|Issue Summary: Did the respondent judge abuse her discretion in granting a motion to set aside a conviction for attempted aggravated assault, when A.R.S. § 13-907(D) precludes such relief for convictions “[i]nvolving a dangerous offense” as defined in A.R.S. § 13-105(13)?|
Thursday September 05, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2013-0015||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pinal||Bradley M. Soos|
|Audio Recording||ROGERS v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in determining when a quiet title action for an easement by implication, necessity, or prescription accrues pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-821?|
Tuesday September 10, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2013-0120||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||James E. Marner|
|Audio Recording||PARKER, SPRINGER JR., ANDERSON v. COMMITTEE FOR SUSTAINABLE RETIREMENT IN SUPPORT OF INITIATIVE|
|Issue Summary: In this election case, the appeal of which is expedited, did the trial court err by: (1) failing as a matter of law to invalidate signatures for the City of Tucson’s Ballot Initiative 2013-I004 that were challenged by appellants on the grounds the signatures were collected by ineligible circulators and/or the signatures were defective; and (2) ordering that the initiative be placed on the City’s November 5, 2013 election ballot. With respect to the cross-appeal, did the court err by: (1) denying appellee/cross-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. P., on August 14, 2013; (2) disqualifying certain initiative petition signatures in favor of appellant/cross-appellees.|
Wednesday September 11, 2013
|2 CA-SA 2013-0053 - 2 CA-HC 2013-0005 (consolidated)||Dept. B||2:00p.m.||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||STEVEN LANE FULLER v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: 1. Is the requirement in A.R.S. § 36-706, that a trial to determine whether a person is an SVP must be held within 120 days of the petition, mandatory or directory? 2. If the requirement is mandatory, did either of the two statutory exceptions apply? 3. Was the petitioner’s right to due process violated by: (a) the failure of the court to appoint counsel, (b) the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to request a probable cause hearing, (c) the length of his detention without an opportunity to be heard? 4. Was the petitioner’s right to justice without delay under the Arizona Constitution violated?|
Wednesday September 18, 2013
|2 CA-CR 2013-0018||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Scott Rash|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANDRES FERNANDO BUELNA|
1. Whether the trial court erred in precluding Buelna from presenting evidence of cocaine metabolites in the victim’s system, as well as related expert testimony about the general behavior characteristics of people with cocaine metabolites in their systems. 2. Whether the trial court erred in precluding Buelna from presenting expert testimony about people’s instinctive responses when faced with situations threatening serious injury or death.
Wednesday September 25, 2013
|2 CA-CR 2012-0156||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Javier Chon-Lopez|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. GEORGE BENJAMIN LARIN|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court erred by: (1) denying the defendant’s requested jury instructions for lesser-included offenses and denying his motion for a new trial on the same ground; (2) denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial when the state sought to elicit an inadmissible, in-court identification; and (3) denying the state’s request that the jury consider the dangerous-nature allegations during the aggravation phase of trial.|
Thursday September 26, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2012-0167||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Cochise||James L. Conlogue|
|Audio Recording||JOHNSON, JR., dba BUTCH JOHNSON FARMS v. BINKLEY|
In a conversion action after the foreclosure and sale of a farm, did the trial court err by: concluding the deed of trust did not encumber personal property other than fixtures; deciding the previous owner had not abandoned property left on the farm; determining the ownership and amount of corn left on the farm; and characterizing certain items as either personal property or fixtures?
Did the court err by denying the cross-appellant’s attorney fee request pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01?
|2 CA-CR 2012-0358||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Richard D. Nichols|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. SHILOE DOMINIQUE ESPINOZA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in barring the retrial of the defendant for aggravated robbery when a previous jury had convicted her of an improper lesser-included offense, had rendered no verdict on the aggravated robbery count, and the state had not sought the declaration of a mistrial on that count?|
Wednesday October 09, 2013
|2 CA-CR 2010-0338||Dept. B||3:00pm||UofA-College of Law||Pima||John S. Leonardo|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAVID JAMES YONKMAN|
|Issue Summary: 1. Did the trial court err in refusing to suppress the defendant’s statements to police? 2. Did the court err in admitting other-act evidence of which the defendant had been charged and acquitted? And, if the evidence was properly admitted, was the defendant entitled to inform the jury of the acquittal? 3. Was it error to admit prior consistent statements of the victim and an alleged former victim when there was no allegation the statements had been made before the motive to fabricate arose? If error, was it harmless because the statements were contained in the victims’ testimony?|
Wednesday November 06, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2013-0047||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Jan E. Kearney|
|Audio Recording||MONROE v. BASIS SCHOOL, INC.|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in determining a charter school has no duty of care to its students as they travel to and from school?|
Wednesday November 20, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2013-0038||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Kyle A. Bryson|
|Audio Recording||IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SANFORD M. BOLTON|
1. Does A.R.S. § 14-3804 require a claimant with a suit pending against the decedent at the time of the decedent’s death, and who sends notice of the claim to the personal representative, to commence another proceeding or move for probate allowance in order to preserve the claim after the personal representative mailed a notice of disallowance of the claim?
2. Did the probate court err in its determination that a claim was barred because no further proceedings were initiated against the estate after the personal representative disallowed a notice of claim, which incorporated the complaint from an ongoing suit against the decedent?
|2 CA-CV 2013-0062||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||In Court||Pinal||Robert Carter Olson|
|Audio Recording||RASH v. TOWN OF MAMMOTH|
(1) Do Rule 7, Ariz. R. P. Spec. Actions, A.R.S. § 12-904, or the common law create a time limit for filing statutory special actions pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-1004?
(2) Did the trial court err in ruling the doctrine of laches barred filing a statutory special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-1004 in this case?
(3) Due to the pre-filing procedures, did the trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the statutory special action filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-1004?
Wednesday December 11, 2013
|2 CA-CV 2013-0044||Dept. A||2:00||In Court||Gila||Gary V. Scales|
|Audio Recording||SANDRETTO v. PAYSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.|
1. In this medical malpractice case, did the trial court err in denying a motion for new trial, which included claims the court made several erroneous evidentiary rulings, improperly denied a motion to continue and a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and improperly approved a co-defendant's settlement agreement? 2. Further, did the trial court err in denying the motion for new trial on the basis that the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and not the result of improper closing arguments?
|2 CA-CV 2013-0045||Dept. A||3:00||In Court||Gila||R. Douglas Holt|
|Audio Recording||BERGESON v. WEST FRONTIER CONDOMINIUMS HOA, INC., et al.|
1) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee based on its conclusion that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred appellant’s claims from proceeding? 2) If the court erred in granting summary judgment based on issue preclusion, was summary judgment nonetheless appropriate?
Wednesday January 08, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0051||Dept. B||2:00||In Court||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||MM&A PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION, et al|
Can the doctrine of apparent authority be applied in a contract action to conclude an Indian Nation’s employee waived the Nation’s sovereign immunity?
Did the trial court err by not allowing further discovery or an evidentiary hearing before ruling it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s contract action?
Wednesday January 15, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2012-0458||Dept. A||2:00||In Court||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDWARD LOUIS FIGUEROA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in finding: (1) reasonable suspicion for the defendant’s detention and probable cause for his arrest for driving under the influence of an intoxicant; (2) the blood draw conducted without a search warrant was reasonable; and, (3) deputies did not use excessive force in detaining the defendant?|
Wednesday February 19, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0053||Dept. B||2:00||In Court||Pima||Charles V. Harrington|
|Audio Recording||TIMMONS v. ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.|
|Issue Summary: 1) Did the trial court err in granting Ross’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that Ross was not the owner or controller of the premises where Timmons fell? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Timmons’s motion to amend her complaint?|
|2 CA-SA 2013-0099||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GALLAGHER; CORUM|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in which defendant asserted it was immune to plaintiffs' claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.05 and that plaintiffs' A.R.S. § 12-821.01 notice of claim was insufficient?|
Wednesday February 26, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0065||Dept. B||2:00||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||PI'IKEA, LLC v. WILLIAMSON|
1. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for plaintiff who had brought an action on a guarantee when the defendant guarantors asserted the lender had a duty to mitigate its damages by permitting a trustee sale to occur, or to take some other recourse, years earlier when the subject property still had sufficient value to cover the debt?
2. Did the guarantors' express waiver of protections under A.R.S. § 47-3605 and "any similar or analogous other statutory or common law" duty preclude their defense that the lender had a duty to mitigate damages before the property lost significant value?
|2 CA-IC 2013-0015||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||In Court||ICA Claim||Jacqueline Wohl|
|Audio Recording||JOHAHNS B. ANDERSON v. PINNACLE PEAK and SCF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: Must an insurance carrier prove there has been a change in a claimant’s medical condition or available treatment before changing a notice of supportive medical maintenance benefits that has not previously been litigated? Did the medical opinion upon which the ALJ relied lack adequate foundation because of incorrect factual assumptions by the expert regarding the claimant’s established disability rating?|
Wednesday March 05, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0126||Dept. A||2:00 pm||In Court||Pima||Gus Aragon|
|Audio Recording||GONZALES v. HOLLEY|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court erred by denying appellant’s request for attorney fees pursuant to Rule 77(f), Ariz. R. Civ. P., because the court failed to consider the monetary sanctions to which she was entitled under Rule 68(g), Ariz. R. Civ. P., when comparing the arbitration award and the subsequent judgment on the trial de novo arising from her appeal of the arbitration award.|
Wednesday March 12, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0069 - 2 CA-CV 2013-0097,2 CA-CV 2013-0098 (consolidated)||Dept. B||2:00 pm||In Court||Pima||Leslie Miller|
|Audio Recording||SOUTHWEST NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION v. NOWAK, KNIFFEN, MARTELL|
1. Did the trial court err in granting defendant appraiser’s motion to dismiss a negligence claim based on lack of duty to plaintiff property seller who claimed a negligently prepared appraisal resulted in a lower sale price for its property?
2. In two similar, consolidated cases, did the trial court err by granting defendant appraisers’ motions for summary judgment based on lack of duty to, and reliance by, plaintiff property seller?
Wednesday March 19, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0108||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Charles V. Harrington|
|Audio Recording||JOHN MUNIC ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LAOS|
1) Did the trial court demonstrate bias or prejudice in fact requiring reversal?
2) Appellants were sued for breach of contract and fraud and appellees were awarded damages. Appellees later sued the attorney who represented them in the transaction with the appellants for professional negligence and reached a confidential settlement. Appellants sought to offset the settlement amount against the award of damages entered against them pursuant to Rule 60(c)(5), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Did the court err in refusing to offset the settlement?
3) Did the court err in denying appellants’ request for a fair market valuation hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1566?
Tuesday April 08, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2012-0478||Dept. A||11:00 a.m.||In Court||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ALBERT LEON MARISCAL|
1. Is activation of lights and sirens as reasonably necessary by a pursuing law enforcement officer an essential element of the offense of unlawful flight under A.R.S. § 28-622.01?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial when a witness testified that the defendant had “other offenses” in his driving record?
Thursday April 10, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0157||Dept. B||1:30pm||Salpointe HighSchool||Pima||Jane L. Eikleberry|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ARMANDO ANDRES ORTIZ|
1. Was it fundamental error for the trial court to instruct the jury it could convict appellant of attempted second-degree murder, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-1001 and 13-1104, if it found he intended to cause the victims serious physical injury?
2. Was defendant prejudiced by the trial court’s jury instruction that he could be convicted of attempted second-degree murder if he intended to kill or cause serious physical injury to victims, where testimony established he had shouted, “I’m going to f---ing kill you,” while firing his gun five times during a struggle with security guards as he was being subdued?
Wednesday April 16, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0100||Dept. A||2:00 pm||In Court||Cochise||Charles A. Irwin|
|Audio Recording||POTTERS CLAY REALTY, ET AL. v. KUMMER|
1. Did the trial court err in concluding Plaintiffs held an express easement for ingress, egress, and utilities across the southern twelve feet of Defendants’ property, when Defendants’ predecessor-in-interest had reserved the easement for himself and then granted it to Plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest?
2. Did the trial court err in its alternative findings that Plaintiffs had an implied easement by prior use or an easement by prescription?
Thursday April 17, 2014
|2 CA-SA 2014-0008||Dept. A||11:00am||In Court||Pima||K.C. Stanford|
|Audio Recording||ADES v. HON. K.C. STANFORD|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in sua sponte initiating a proceeding for a permanent guardianship and subsequently allowing an intervening party to undertake such a proceeding when that party had not complied with the statutory requirements?|
Wednesday April 23, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2012-0166 - 2 CA-CV 2013-0090 (consolidated)||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Charles V. Harrington|
|Audio Recording||BENNETT BLUM, M.D., INC. v. COWAN; LAW OFFICE OF RAND HADDOCK|
|Issue Summary: (1) Whether the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in this breach-of-contract action are supported by the record; (2) whether the trial court erred by precluding appellants from presenting the affirmative defense of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) whether the trial court erred by awarding appellee attorney fees incurred post-judgment.|
|2 CA-CV 2013-0113||Dept. B||3:00 PM||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||MUNGER CHADWICK v. FARWEST DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHWEST, LLC, et al|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in finding Munger Chadwick was eligible for an award of attorney fees?|
|2 CA-CV 2013-0117||Dept. A||4:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Leslie Miller|
|Audio Recording||IN RE INDENTURE OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 13, 1964|
1. Did the trial court err in finding that the beneficiary of a spendthrift trust had no standing to file a petition for accounting when the beneficiary had, twelve years prior, assigned his entire interest in the trust?
2. Did the trial court err in awarding the appellee’s/cross-appellant’s attorney fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-110074(B)?
3. Did the trial court err in awarding the appellee’s/cross-appellant’s a lower amount of attorney fees than what they requested?
Wednesday April 30, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0059||Dept. B||2:00 PM||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||LIBBY v. LICHTE|
|Issue Summary: (1) When the plaintiff’s airplane was destroyed by a fire in the defendants’ hangar, which was not equipped with a fire-suppression system, did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against the plaintiff on his negligence and bailment claims? (2) If summary judgment was warranted, did the court err in its award of fees, costs, or sanctions?|
Wednesday May 07, 2014
|2 CA-SA 2014-0015||Dept. B||2:00pm||Courtroom||Cochise||Wallace R. Hoggatt|
|Audio Recording||KEENAN REED-KALIHER v. STATE OF ARIZONA|
|Issue Summary: When the petitioner was on probation for possession of a narcotic drug for sale, did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying his motion to modify the terms of that probation to allow him to use marijuana pursuant to Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act?|
Wednesday June 04, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0096||Dept. A||2:00p.m.||In Court||Pima||Howard Hantman|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. AGUSTIN GONZALEZ GONGORA|
|Issue Summary: Under the voyeurism statute, A.R.S. § 13-1424, can a person’s privacy be invaded when the person is in a public place and reasonably expects to be viewed by the public, but the defendant views the person in a manner that captures the person’s genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public, such as an “upskirt” viewing?|
|2 CA-CV 2013-0148||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||Gila||Peter J. Cahill|
|Audio Recording||DON C. ROBERTSON, et al. v. ROBERT E. ALLING and JACQUELINE R. ALLING, et al.|
Did the trial court err by enforcing a settlement agreement under Rule 80(d), Ariz. R. Civ. P., when one of the parties challenged its attorney’s settlement authority?
If the court erred in finding the agreement enforceable pursuant to Rule 80(d), was the agreement still enforceable under the principles of equitable estoppel?
Tuesday June 10, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0296||Dept. A||2:00p.m.||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. CARLOS UBALDO GONZALEZ|
1. Did a police officer conduct an investigatory stop by parking his marked patrol car behind a parked vehicle, blocking its exit, when the occupants of the vehicle did not appear to notice or react to the officer’s presence?
2. If there was an investigatory stop, did the officer have reasonable suspicion on which to initiate it?
Friday June 13, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2014-0022||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Westin La Paloma||Yavapai||Kenton D. Jones|
|Audio Recording||IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF THORN|
1. Filed more than thirty days after the entry of the judgment, was the amended notice of appeal untimely and did it therefore fail to confer jurisdiction on this court to address the trial court’s distribution of community personal property, which was the portion of the decree contained in the amended notice of appeal?
2. Did the trial court exceed its statutory authority in ordering Husband to return certain stocks and bonds to Wife?
3. Was Husband judicially estopped from arguing a contrary position on appeal regarding the equitable distribution of the marital residence; alternatively, did the trial court err in its distribution?
4. Did the trial court err in determining that a loan from Wife to Husband remained unpaid?
Tuesday July 22, 2014
|2 CA-SA 2014-0010||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pinal||Joseph R. Georgini|
|Audio Recording||PINAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. GEORGINI and T.J.|
Wednesday August 06, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0145||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||James E. Marner|
|Audio Recording||CANYON COMMUNITY BANK v. ALDERSON, ALDERSON FAMILY TRUST|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in interpreting a contract between appellant and appellee by: 1) finding the contract was superseded, or 2) not considering parol evidence, or 3) not construing a contract provision against the drafter?|
Wednesday August 20, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0116||Dept. B||2:00p.m.||Cochise||Wallace R. Hoggatt|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ADOLFO NOEL RUIZ, JR.|
|Issue Summary: Is attempted manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion a cognizable offense under Arizona law if the person only intended to cause serious physical injury rather than death?|
|2 CA-CR 2013-0368||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||Pima||Deborah Bernini|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAVID SOTO CECENA|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by denying the appellant's request for presentence incarceration credit under A.R.S. § 13-712(B) for time incarcerated in a foreign country while extradition proceeded?|
Wednesday August 27, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0552||Dept. A||11:00 AM||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. DOMINIC RODOLPHO FLORES|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in sentencing the defendant as a repetitive offender pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703(B)(1) absent an express jury finding that his offenses had not been committed on the same occasion?|
|2 CA-CR 2014-0154-PR||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Kyle A. Bryson|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RONNIE ROY VERA|
|Issue Summary: Whether a trial court’s order granting relief, pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), to a juvenile sentenced to life imprisonment without release for twenty five-years, should be vacated in light of the legislature’s recent action affording such juveniles an opportunity for parole.|
|2 CA-CR 2013-0129||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||Cochise||Wallace R. Hoggatt|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOHN DAVID GIBBONS|
|Issue Summary: 1) Did sufficient evidence support the trial court’s finding that Gibbons had violated his probation by violating A.R.S. § 13-3619? 2) Are portions of A.R.S. § 13-3619 unconstitutionally vague?|
Wednesday September 03, 2014
|2 CA-IC 2013-0022||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||Courtroom||ICA Claim||Gary M. Israel|
|Audio Recording||CHARLES W. STENZ v. CITY OF TUCSON and PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES|
|Issue Summary: Was the petitioner entitled to interest on death benefits pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1046(A) dating from the time of her husband’s death until such benefits were awarded by an administrative law judge four years later?|
Wednesday September 24, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0442||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||Pinal||Hon. Jason R. Holmberg|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ESLYN ADRIAN VILLA|
1) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on a new lesser-included offense for the first time during jury deliberations?
2) Did the trial court err in failing to provide the parties additional closing arguments after instructing the jury on a new lesser-included offense when the defendant stated he did not want any additional closing arguments?
Tuesday October 07, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0162||Dept. B||2:00pm||College of Law||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||ROBERT FLEMING v. STATE OF ARIZONA, AZ. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, GALLIVAN|
(1) Did the trial court err by instructing the jury on qualified immunity pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(7)?
(2) Did the trial court err by admitting in evidence the results of tests showing decedent’s breath alcohol concentration and post-mortem blood alcohol concentration?
|2 CA-CV 2014-0007||Dept. B||3:00pm||College of Law||Santa Cruz||Anna M. Montoya-Paez|
|Audio Recording||MCA FINANCIAL GROUP, LTD. v. ENTERPRISE BANK & TRUST|
1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction over a corporation that was never named, served, or joined as a party to the litigation?
2. Did the trial court err by ordering a non-party to disgorge funds because its employee had been appointed receiver in the action, and the non-party had submitted bills and collected fees from the receivership estate?
Wednesday November 05, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2013-0531||Dept. B||10:00am||Tucson High School||Pima||Hon. Casey F. McGinley|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. TIMOTHY ALLEN EAST|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err in denying a motion to suppress evidence found after an officer opened the defendant’s car door to check on his welfare?|
Wednesday November 12, 2014
|2 CA-CR 2014-0041||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. HAROLD HILL CLARK|
(1) Is A.R.S. § 28-1388(D), which allows a defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test to be admitted at a later proceeding, facially unconstitutional as violating a person’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process because it allows a person’s exercise of Fourth Amendment rights to be used against him or her at a criminal trial?
(2) Does A.R.S. § 28-1388(D) violate the separation of powers doctrine of the Arizona Constitution by interfering with the judiciary’s rulemaking authority, specifically its authority in promulgating Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence?
|2 CA-CR 2013-0323||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||Pima||Deborah Bernini|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANTHONY LEWIS|
1. Whether, after an initial determination by the court that a defendant was incompetent but restorable, evidence of malingering is sufficient to overcome the presumption of continued incompetence.
2. Whether A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1) requires that a residential yard be fenced.
3. Whether a trial court abuses its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on criminal trespass when the state seeks to prove the defendant had committed third-degree burglary under A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1).
4. Whether the trial court violates the Sixth Amendment when it imposes a maximum prison term for an offense in reliance on an aggravator that a jury found proven beyond a reasonable doubt even though the jury finding did not specify for which of the defendant’s convictions the aggravator had been proven.
Tuesday December 09, 2014
|2 CA-CV 2013-0151||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||TURNER v. ALTA MIRA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.|
|Issue Summary: 1) Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiffs injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in denying both parties’ requests for attorney fees? 3) Did the trial court err in denying defendant’s motion to join essential parties?|
Wednesday December 10, 2014
|2 CA-SA 2014-0057||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. LEE; L.N.|
|Issue Summary: (1) Did the respondent judge abuse his discretion by finding the state had failed to establish the real party in interest was a chronic felony offender under A.R.S. § 13-501(A) and (H)(2) based on two class six felony delinquency adjudications, and subject to mandatory prosecution as an adult, in light of the Pima County Attorney’s Office policy permitting adults to be charged with class one misdemeanors for the same offenses—possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia—rather than class six felonies? (2) Does the fact that A.R.S. § 13-604(A) and (B) permits these class six felonies to be charged or designated as misdemeanors place upon the state the burden of establishing this juvenile would have been charged with class six felonies rather than class one misdemeanors had he committed the offenses as an adult before he could be subject to prosecution as an adult as a chronic felony offender under § 13-501(A) and (H)(2)?|
Tuesday December 16, 2014
|2 CA-SA 2014-0075||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Pima||Peter W. Hochuli|
|Audio Recording||RENE CASTRO v. HON. PETER J. HOCHULI; C.C.|
Wednesday January 14, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0103||Dept. B||2:00 P.M.||Pinal||Gilberto V. Figueroa|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. AUSTIN GARRETT HANSEN|
|Issue Summary: 1) Does the state have a right to appeal a mistrial order under A.R.S. § 13-4032(2), which allows an appeal from an “order granting a new trial”? (2) If not, is special action jurisdiction appropriate in this case? (3) Did the trial court err by declaring a mistrial when the jury returned verdict forms finding the defendant guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but not guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault?|
Wednesday February 04, 2015
|2 CA-CV 2014-0063||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Ted B. Borek|
|Audio Recording||WATSON v. STRATTON RESTORATION|
|Issue Summary: 1. Did the trial court err in granting Stratton’s motion for judgment as a matter of law where the Watsons failed to proffer an expert opinion regarding the standard of care for a restoration services professional? 2. Did the trial court err in denying Stratton’s motion for sanctions, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349 and Rule 11, Ariz. R. Civ. P., where the Watsons failed to establish an essential element of their claim against Stratton?|
Wednesday March 04, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0181||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Pima||Howard Fell|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. RONALD JAMES SISCO II|
|Issue Summary: (1) Following the enactment of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 through 36-2819, does the scent of marijuana plants, standing alone, supply probable cause for a search warrant? And if not, did the trial court err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress? (2) Is evidence establishing a toddler’s presence in or around a marijuana-growing operation sufficient to support a conviction of child abuse?|
|2 CA-CV 2015-0017||Dept. B||3:00pm||In Court||Pima||Gus Aragon|
|Audio Recording||DEBRA ARRETT and SHIRLEY LAMONNA v. JULIE K. BOWER, Oro Valley Town Clerk; MICHELE REAGAN, Arizona Secretary of State|
|Issue Summary: Did the trial court err by denying appellants’ request for a writ of mandamus pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122, compelling the clerk of the Town of Oro Valley to accept and transmit to the Pima County Recorder for certification a referendum petition appellants had submitted and which the clerk had rejected for lack of compliance with the statute?|
Wednesday April 01, 2015
|2 CA-CV 2014-0095||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Gila||Peter J. Cahill|
|Audio Recording||PAYSON WATER COMPANY v. PRAHIN|
1. Did the parties’ stipulation to dismiss remaining claims without prejudice subject to an agreement to privately arbitrate the dismissed claims render the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment a final, appealable order?
2. Did the trial court err in determining that Payson Water Co. owned the well and well facilities as a matter of law?
3. Did the parties’ mutual departures from the main extension agreement render it a nullity?
4. Did the trial court err by determining Prahin’s remaining claims were barred by the statute of limitations?
Wednesday April 15, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0169||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||Cochise||Karl D. Elledge|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. FRANCISCO L. ENCINAS VALENZUELA|
1. The admin per se/implied consent form, which is read to a driver after an arrest for driving under the influence, states that “Arizona law requires” the driver to consent to chemical testing and then prompts the driver to determine whether he wishes to comply. Does the content or sequential presentation of information and question render any consent involuntary?
2. Was the defendant’s consent to alcohol concentration testing involuntary based on the totality of the circumstances?
|2 CA-CV 2014-0134||Dept. B||3:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Dean Christoffel|
|Audio Recording||VALER C. AUSTIN v. JOSIAH T. AUSTIN|
1. Did the trial court err when it applied the standards outlined in In re Harber’s Estate, 104 Ariz. 79, 449 P.2d 7 (1969), in its analysis of the arbitration clause of an agreement between Valer Austin and Josiah Austin?
2. Did the trial court err in concluding Valer’s children, as nonsignatories to the agreement, were not estopped from avoiding arbitration?
3. Did the trial court err in failing to limit its findings to whether an agreement to arbitrate exists and whether the parties were bound by it?
|2 CA-CV 2014-0044||Dept. A||9:00 a.m.||In Court||Pima||Carmine Cornelio|
|Audio Recording||CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SOUTH, LLC v. FALCONE BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.|
|Issue Summary: To preserve its claim against a bond on a public works project, may a materialman claimant send the twenty day notices required by Arizona’s “Little Miller Act,” A.R.S. § 34-223(A), via first class mail with certificates of mailing, rather than by registered or certified mail?|
Wednesday April 29, 2015
|2 CA-CV 2014-0124||Dept. A||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||D. Douglas Metcalf|
|Audio Recording||GALLAGHER v. TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT|
|Issue Summary: Whether A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B) provides a public entity with immunity against direct liability claims, such as negligent hiring and supervision, stemming from its employee’s felony criminal conduct when the entity lacks actual knowledge of its employee’s propensity for such conduct.|
Wednesday May 13, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0274||Dept. A||3:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Richard S. Fields|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. JEREMY ALLEN MATLOCK|
|Issue Summary: Whether a registered qualifying patient under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) is immune from prosecution pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-2811(B)(3) for selling marijuana to another registered qualifying patient.|
Wednesday June 24, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0107||Dept. B||2:00 p.m.||In Court||Pima||Kenneth Lee|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. AMBER MARIE BAILEY|
|Issue Summary: Did a postal inspector have articulable, reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop of the defendant where the inspector suspected her of shipping boxes of drugs several days earlier, but had not yet obtained a warrant to search the boxes?|
Wednesday July 08, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0008||Dept. A||2:00P.M.||Pima||Paul E. Tang|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHRIS EVERETT WILLIAMSON|
|Issue Summary: Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motions: (1) to dismiss on due process grounds based on outrageous government conduct; (2) to recuse the prosecutor’s office based on the appearance of impropriety; (3) for jury instructions concerning the government’s destruction of evidence and the definition of “inducement” for his entrapment defense; and, (4) for a mistrial after the prosecutor added subtitles to a video played at trial and after a police officer gave an opinion on an ultimate issue while testifying. Also, whether four convictions related to a single conspiracy amount to multiple punishments as barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.|
Wednesday August 05, 2015
|2 CA-CV 2014-0147||Dept. B||2:00pm||In Court||Pima||D. Douglas Metcalf|
|Audio Recording||FRANK and BETTINA GAMBRELL v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.|
|Issue Summary: 1. Does the underinsured motorist coverage in a personal automobile liability policy cover the insured while he is driving a commercial vehicle? 2. Is the commercial vehicle exception in A.R.S. § 20-259.01(C) limited to situations in which an owner or operator seeks specifically to insure a commercial vehicle? 3. Is an insurance policy required to contain specific language invoking the commercial vehicle exception to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage found in A.R.S. § 20-259.01(C)?|
Wednesday August 12, 2015
|2 CA-CR 2014-0268||Dept. A||2:00 p.m.||Pima||Richard D. Nichols|
|Audio Recording||STATE OF ARIZONA v. JERRY CHARLES HOLLE|
|Issue Summary: (1) Whether sexual motivation is an essential element of the offenses of molestation of a child and sexual abuse that must be proved by the state or lack of sexual motivation is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant; and, (2) Whether A.R.S. § 13-1407(E), which provides that a lack of sexual motivation or interest is a defense to a charge of sexual abuse or child molestation, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.|