Arizona Supreme Court
Ted King, Petitioners v. the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, and E.g. Noyes, Jr., a Judge Thereof…
November 9, 1983138 Ariz. 147
Summary
The court accepted special-action jurisdiction because the trial court's dismissal of King's legal-malpractice complaint was legally unjustified and the minute entry was not appealable. It held that issue preclusion applies only to issues actually litigated, determined, and essential to the prior judgment, and that King's malpractice allegations were not categorically barred by the prior civil trial or new-trial proceedings. The dismissal was vacated, the complaint was ordered reinstated, and the trial court was directed to determine which allegations, if any, had been properly presented and decided in the new-trial proceedings.
Holding
- Special-action jurisdiction. Special-action jurisdiction was proper because the dismissal could not be justified under the governing law, the minute entry was not appealable, the issue was a pure question of law, and the error was patent.
- Issue preclusion and the malpractice complaint. Issue preclusion may be asserted defensively against a party to the prior action, but only as to issues actually litigated and determined in that action and essential to its judgment. The malpractice allegations concerning settlement communications were not precluded because they were beyond the scope of, and could not have been essential to, the ruling on the motion for a new trial.
- Effect of allegations concerning counsel's trial conduct. The remaining malpractice allegations were not categorically precluded. On remand, the superior court had to determine whether any allegation was actually presented in the new-trial proceedings and whether it concerned a ruling that the trial court properly reviewed on the merits. Allegations based only on counsel's failure to act, where no underlying ruling existed for review, were not essential to the denial of a new trial and could not produce preclusion.
Docket 17078-SA
Cited authorities
- Ariz. R.Civ.P. 12(b)
- Rule 59(a)
Cited by
- In Re the Marriage of James Everett Davis, Petitioner-Appellee v. Patricia Kathleen Davis, Respondent-Appellant
- Takieh v. Banner Health
- Hamberlin v. Arizona, State of
- Ralph S. Hockett, Ii, Appellant (plaintiff) v. Preston T. Breunig and Richard Gilroy, Appellees (defendants)
- State of Arizona ex rel. Kerry G. Wangberg, Phoenix City Prosecutor v. the Honorable Richard M. Smith, Judge of The…
- Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. the Honorable Karyn Klausner and the Honorable Michael Carroll Magistrates Of…
- Alan Wayne Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections and Three (3) Unnamed Disciplinary Committee Members
- Nancy Kabat Nordensson, Petitioner/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Jeffrey Alan Nordensson…