Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai

Summary

The court held that the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control did not owe the adult plaintiffs a statute-based duty of care because the cited statutes either granted discretionary authority, imposed duties unrelated to the alleged injury, or regulated licensees rather than the Department. The court also held that the Town's cross-appeal was timely because the Fourth Judgment was the operative Rule 54(c) judgment, and that the superior court retained jurisdiction to decide the motion for new trial because the plaintiffs sufficiently notified the appellate court of the pending motion. The court vacated and depublished portions of the court of appeals' opinion, affirmed the dismissal of the adult plaintiffs' claims against the State, and remanded for consideration of the Town's cross-appeal.