Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks, 17 Adz.App. 308, 310, 497 P.2d 534, 536 (1972). ¶38 We agree with the trial court that the Richardsons’ claim for declaratory relief regarding future liability to third parties for any failure to maintain the easement is non-justiciable. “ ‘A declaratory relief statute only justifies a declaration of rights upon an existing state of facts, not one upon a state of facts which may or may not arise in the future. Nor will future rights be determined in anticipation of an event that may never happen.’” Moore v. Bolin, 70 Ariz. 354, 357, 220 P.2d 850, 852 (1950) (quoting Annotation, Declaration of Rights or Declaratory Judgments, 87 A.L.R. 1205 (1933)); U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 198 Ariz. 208, 214-15, ¶ 15, 8 P.3d 396, 402-03 (App.2000) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 201 Ariz. 242, 247, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court will not render judgment on situation that may never occur (B) holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity (C) holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal (D) holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional (E) holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment
Output (English): holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment