Arizona Supreme Court

The court answered the first certified question yes: the 2022 amendment to Arizona’s Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights does not apply to at-will employment agreements executed before its effective date because the amendment affects substantive rights that vested when the agreements were made.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a notice of claim containing conflicting written and numerical settlement amounts does not satisfy the statutory requirement to state a specific settlement amount.

The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that a public agency’s post‑request destruction of a record constitutes a denial of the request, that both the agency’s exemption determinations and specific document withholding are legal questions reviewed de novo, and that a requester’s pre‑litigation…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Ronan's 'particularized need' balancing framework—not a looser 'reasonable basis' standard—governs a former indicted defendant who lawfully possesses grand jury transcripts under A.R.S.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the court of appeals misapplied A.R.S. § 12-2604 as construed in Baker because it identified the care or treatment at issue solely as the wound care Dr.

The court held that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 19.4 did not require a successor judge assigned solely to sentencing to review the trial transcripts because no proceeding was interrupted and sentencing had not begun when the reassignment occurred.

The court held that Arizona law gives the Department standing to appear and defend an unemployment-benefits appeals-board decision in the court of appeals, subject to statutory and record-based limits on its arguments.

The court held that the clergy-penitent privilege applies only when the claimant establishes that the communication was a confidential acknowledgment or admission made to clergy for spiritual absolution, consolation, or guidance, along with the other statutory requirements.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Grasshopper Trans, Inc. did not waive its right to challenge the entry of default because the service of process was defective and the superior court lacked personal jurisdiction when the default became effective.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s summary‑judgment granting the Church defendants’ motion, holding that the First Amendment bars a factfinder from probing a clergy member’s doctrinal determination of whether to withhold reporting child abuse.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona statutes §33‑2002 and related provisions expressly authorize a homeowners’ association to bring an implied‑warranty dwelling action for construction defects in both common areas it owns and the exteriors of individual units, interpreting the statutory definition of…

The Arizona Supreme Court held that qualifying permanent crops, including orchard trees and vineyard vines, must be valued with the underlying agricultural property under the income approach prescribed by A.R.S. § 42-13101.

The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that attorney‑client privilege does not automatically extend to communications with a third party absent the client unless the third party’s presence is objectively necessary, and it reaffirmed that the party asserting privilege bears the burden of proof.

The court held that a public entity invoking the best-interests-of-the-state exception need not prove, as a threshold element, that disclosure is more likely than not to cause specific, material harm.

The court held that the Election Procedures Manual is governed by a distinct, comprehensive procedure established by statute and therefore is not invalid for failing to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court held that strict product liability requires separate proof that a product was defective, that the defect made it unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect proximately caused the injury.

The court held that multiple named insureds who jointly procure automobile insurance constitute “one insured” under the uninsured/underinsured motorist statute’s anti-stacking provision.

The court held that plaintiffs failed to state legally viable facial challenges to the Voters’ Right to Know Act under Arizona’s free-speech and privacy provisions, including their overbreadth and vagueness theories.

The court held that the improper-conduct requirement applicable to unjust-enrichment claims involving tenant-ordered improvements does not extend to an owner that sought improvements, arranged for them through a third party, and paid no one for the work.

The court held that the trial court fundamentally and prejudicially erred by giving conflicting instructions on provocation manslaughter and by using a verdict form that treated that offense as a lesser included offense.

The court held that Stephens failed to state a wrongful institution of civil proceedings claim because prior juvenile-court and appellate adjudications established probable cause for the dependency proceedings, absent allegations that DCS procured those adjudications through fraud, perjury, or comparable corrupt…

The court affirmed McCauley’s first-degree-murder conviction and death sentence. It found several instances of prosecutorial error, including misstatements about his criminal history, an attack on defense counsel, and references to the aggravating circumstance, but held that none individually or cumulatively denied…

The court held that establishing prosecutorial error does not require proof of the prosecutor’s intent or any other culpable mental state. It found that repeated leading questions and the admission of technical ballistics testimony from unqualified witnesses were prosecutorial errors, but concluded that their…

The court held that the 2021 amendments to A.R.S. § 12-910(F) retained substantial-evidence review while eliminating deference to agency factfinding in proceedings brought by or against a regulated party.

The court held that the one-year limitations period in A.R.S. § 12-821 does not apply to an action brought by one public entity against another because the statute did not expressly or by necessary implication abrogate the nullum tempus doctrine.

The court held that communications to third parties may be “directed at” a victim for purposes of harassment when they target the victim and are designed to provoke an adverse consequence against that person.

The court held that a healthcare textile laundry and disinfection process can qualify as a “processing operation” under Arizona’s use-tax exemption because it prepares textiles for their intended market.

The court held that the patient’s communications with a social worker during a one-time preliminary assessment were not protected by the behavioral health professional-client privilege because no confidential professional-client relationship existed.

The court held that Arizona’s luring statute and dangerous-crime-against-children statute do not require an actual minor victim before the State may seek a sentencing enhancement.

The court held that the enhanced penalty statute does not apply because Owen's fatal collision occurred before his vehicle entered the intersection and therefore preceded any red-light violation.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of voters' constitutional challenge to the geographic retention-election districts for court of appeals judges. The court held that the scheme neither disenfranchises voters nor gives their votes unequal weight under the Free and Equal Elections Clause, and that it does not…

The court held that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant because her speed, lane position, and being passed on the right provided an objectively reasonable basis to suspect a traffic violation, even if the trooper reasonably misunderstood the statute.

The court declined to adopt the closely related party doctrine for allowing a non-signatory to enforce a forum selection clause. It held that the contract's text controls and that established doctrines provide adequate means for non-signatories to enforce or be bound by contractual provisions.

The court held that the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement for emergency-department malpractice claims is a standard of proof, not an additional prima facie element of causation.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a separately lockable bedroom within a condominium can constitute a residential structure and premises under Arizona's justification statutes.

The court held that the legislative leaders had standing to challenge provisions of the Voters’ Right to Know Act allegedly delegating legislative power to an executive agency, even though the agency had not yet exercised that authority.

The court held that a successive ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s grossly inadequate communication of a plea offer is not automatically precluded and falls within the exception for constitutional rights requiring the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and personal waiver.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the pandemic-liability statute unconstitutionally abrogated the anti-abrogation right by eliminating ordinary-negligence claims against health care providers and requiring proof of gross negligence instead.

The court held that the homeowners’ assignments to the homeowners’ association of accrued claims for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability were not barred by the purchase agreements’ anti-assignment clause.

The court held that a judge who previously recused from a case cannot later re-enter it without explaining why disqualification no longer applies and giving the parties an opportunity to object.