Source: http://www.omlaw.com/azapp-blog/postings/2013/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:45:16+00:00

Document:
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Rule 7, Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, Does Not Apply to Statutory Special Actions filed in Superior Court, and Thus ARCAP 9(a)’s Time Limit for Filing an Appeal Also Does Not Apply.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That, To Comply With A.R.S. § 12-821.01, a Claimant’s Settlement Offer Must Remain Open for Sixty Days Unless the Public Entity or Employee Denies the Claim Before the Sixty-Day Period Expires.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Petition Circulators Convicted of a Felony are Not Eligible Unless Their Civil Rights Have Been Restored, That Several Circulators Were Ineligible Under Arizona Revised Statute § 19-114, and Therefore The Signatures Gathered by the Circulators Were Invalid.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That the Doctrine of Equitable Subrogation Does Not Permit a Court to Reorder the Priority Given to Mechanic’s Liens by Statute.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Homeowner May Not Sue Subcontractor for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Unless Homeowner Has Contractual Privity with Subcontractor.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Settlement of Tort Claim Against Principal Does Not Exonerate Agent.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That (1) Confidentiality, Non-Compete, and Customer Non-Solicitation Covenants That Are Overbroad in Scope Are Unenforceable, (2) the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Prohibits an Employee from Competing with Her Employer While Still Employed, (3) the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act Does Not Preempt Tort Claims Regarding Misuse of Confidential Information That Does Not Rise to the Level of a Trade Secret, and (4) an Agreement to a Sales Price and a Representation That the Seller Would Ask Her Attorney to Draft a Purchase Contract Was Not Sufficient to Sustain a Claim for Promissory Fraud.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That HB 2593 Does Not Affect the Contribution Limits for State and Legislative Candidates Set by the Citizens Clean Elections Act and Grants Preliminary Injunctive Relief Requiring Enforcement of Previous Limits.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that the Statute of Limitations Applies to Quiet Title Actions Where the Parties Contest Possession.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program Does Not Violate the Religion or Aid Clause of the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That a Trial Court Should Allow a Party to Respond to Requests for Admission Late if Permitting the Late Responses Will Promote Presentation of the Merits and the Party Obtaining the Admission Is Not Prejudiced.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Legislature’s Budget Measure Violated Voter Protection Act By Repealing or Amending Voter-Approved Statute Requiring Certain Increases to School Funding.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Statutory Procedure for Awarding State Trust Lands Grazing Lease Satisfies the Enabling Act and Arizona’s Constitution.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds Judicial Nomination Statute Unconstitutional.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Determinations of a Board of Directors of a County Improvement District Made at a Hearing Held Pursuant to A.R.S. § 48-924(D) Are Quasi-Judicial and Have Preclusive Effect.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Superior Court Does Not Have Discretion Under A.R.S. § 12-1182(B) To Deny A Stay Of A Forcible Entry And Detainer Judgment Pending Appeal When The Party In Possession Satisfies Statutory Requirements.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That A Creditor May Sue a Guarantor Without A Prior Trustee’s Sale, Arizona’s Anti-Deficiency Statute Only Applies After A Trustee’s Sale Of A Qualifying Property Under A.R.S. § 33-814(G), And A Creditor May Recover a Deficiency Judgment Against A Guarantor Even When The Underlying Debt Against The Borrower Is Extinguished.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That When a Patient Gives Informed Consent to a Medical Procedure, the Patient May Not Assert a Claim for Medical Battery Based on the Doctor’s Failure to Disclose Information Unrelated to the Procedure.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 33-441, which voids deed restrictions prohibiting the placement of “for sale” and “for rent” signs on real property, is constitutional under the contract clause and applies retroactively to pre-existing CC&Rs.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that Restitution Payments May Be Insurable.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1) of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act Does Not Preempt Arizona Law Barring Subrogation in Personal Injury Cases.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That (1) Common Law Causes Of Action Are Preempted By the U.C.C. Only To The Extent That Particular Provisions of the U.C.C. Displace the Action, (2) A Conversion Action Can Be Brought Against A Third-Party Recipient Of Funds In Certain Circumstances, and (3) A Credit Card Company Has No Duty Of Disclosure To Third Parties.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that Prejudgment Interest Imposed as a Sanction Pursuant to Rule 68(g) Constitutes an “Obligation” Under § 44-1201(A).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds Fiduciary Fees and Costs May Not Be Reduced Solely Because Protected Person Cannot Afford To Pay.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That a Cause Of Action for Exposure to Toxic Mold Begins to Accrue When the Claimant Experiences Physical Signs and Symptoms of Illness, Knows That She Has Been Exposed to Mold, and Knows That Mold May Present a Health Hazard.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds that a Wrongful Death Claim Based on Exposure to Asbestos in New Mexico, Which Resulted in Mesothelioma Diagnosed Thirty Years Later in Arizona, is Subject to the Substantive Law of New Mexico.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A Final Judgment Entered In Small Claims Court May Preclude A Subsequent Suit In Superior Court That Is Based Upon The Same Facts.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That the Adult Protective Services Act Applies To Acute Care Hospitals.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That the Firefighter’s Rule Does Not Apply to an Public Safety Professional Who Acts Beyond the Scope of His Required Employment Duties While At an Accident Scene As Part of His On-Duty Obligations.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Extend to Non-Contracting Parties.
Arizona Court of Appeals Divison One Holds That Recorded Documents That Assert an Interest in Real Property, Such As a Notice of Trustee Sale, Are Subject to Arizona’s Groundless Lien Statute, A.R.S. § 33-420.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Treating Physician’s Testimony Regarding Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis of His or Her Patient is Not Expert Testimony Simply Because It Draws Upon the Physician’s Skill or Training.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Worker’s Compensation Claimant Is a Volunteer Rather than an Employee, and Thus Is Not Eligible for Benefits, if the Claimant Does Not Receive Payment as Remuneration and Instead Only Receives Reimbursements and a Stipend to Facilitate the Claimant’s Volunteer Work.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Defendant Who Files a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer Forfeits His Claim For Attorney’s Fees Unless He Requests Fees in the Motion to Dismiss.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that Trial Court Must Try to Resolve Privilege Claims without Reviewing Inadvertently Disclosed Documents before Reviewing them.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Arbitration Agreement Is Substantively Unconscionable Because Cost to Arbitrate Is Prohibitively High.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Arizona’s Limited Partnership Act Does Not Require Automatic Removal of a General Partner from a Limited Partnership When a Legally Defective Proceeding for Dissolution Remains Pending Against the General Partner for More Than 120 Days.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that a Mobile Home Park in its Entirety is Entitled to Non-Conforming-Use Status Under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(A).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That The Arizona Prompt Payment Act – Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 32-1129 et seq. – Does Not Apply To a Contract For Architectural Services.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division OneHolds That Borrowers May Not Prospectively Waive Statutory Anti-Deficiency Protections.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Form Offering Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage Under A.R.S. § 20 259.01 Must Include Information About Any Premium for Such Coverage, and Must Offer to Create a Binding Contract if Coverage Is Accepted.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Any Party Seeking To Retain Damages for the Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract Must Prove That It Was Ready, Willing, and Able To Perform Under the Contract.
ArizonaCourt of Appeals Division One Holds That Arizona Revised Statute § 41-1604(B)(3) is Constitutional.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that for the Purposes of an Insurance Policy, a “Household” Is Evaluated Based upon the Totality of the Circumstances.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that When the Government Eliminates a Property Owner’s Established Access to an Abutting Street and the Owner Retains Access from Another Street, the Owner is Not Necessarily Foreclosed from Obtaining Compensation for Damages to the Property.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A Defendant Forfeits His Claim For Attorney’s Fees If He Makes No Request For Fees In A Successful Rule 12(b) Motion.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that Foreclosure Action Must Name All Parties with Interests in the Property.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Statute Defining Cognitive Disability Trumps Division of Developmental Disabilities’ Interpretation of the Statute.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that a Business’s Customer List Is Not a Trade Secret Where the Business Has Not Shown that the List Contains Unique and Original Information, that the Business Invested Substantial Time and Effort to Acquire the Information, or that the Business Treated the List as Secret.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Separate Insurance Coverage is a Prerequisite to Additional State Assurance Fund Coverage.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 67(d), Which Requires a Trial Court to Order a Plaintiff to Provide Security for Costs on a Showing That He Does Not Own Property Within the State That Could Satisfy the Defendant’s Claim for Costs in the Litigation, Is Facially Constitutional Because the Requirement May Be Waived Based on the Plaintiff’s Inability to Post Bond.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Congenital Condition Does Not Qualify as Amputation for Purposes of Disability Apportionment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds the Economic Loss Rule Does Not Apply to Cases Brought Under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That a Deceased Spouse May Leave More Than One-Half of a Community-Owned Retirement Account to a Non-Spouse Beneficiary as Long as the Surviving Spouse Receives at Least One-Half of the Community’s Total Value.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that A.R.S. § 12-2604(A) Is Inapplicable to Board Disciplinary Proceedings.
Arizona Court of Appeals Divison One Holds That A Fee Award Against Mechanics’ Lien Claimants Must Be Apportioned Among All Lien Claimants That Have Asserted Their Lien Rights.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Mandamus Is Not Available to Compel the Director of the Arizona Department of Insurance to Enforce A.R.S. § 20-461(B), a Statute Prohibiting Discrimination Between Different Types of Physicians, Because Enforcement of That Statute Is Discretionary.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That in Medical Malpractice Cases, an Expert’s "Specialty" Under ARS § 12-2604 May Be a Subspeciality if the Expert Spends a Majority of His or Her Time Practicing or Teaching in That Specialty.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That A Party Is Not Required to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies Before Appealing to the Superior Court When The Pursuit of Administrative Remedies Would Be Futile.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That The Term “Premises” Under Arizona’s Recreational Use Statute, A.R.S. § 33-1551, Includes a Golf Course.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that it may Exercise Jurisdiction over a Premature Appeal unless Substantive Motions or Issues Await Determination.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That There Is No Cause of Action for Aiding And Abetting Under the Arizona Securities Act, Overruling State v. Davis.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That The Defense Of Laches Requires Proof of Prejudicial Delay And Unreasonable Conduct.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Rule 37(c) Does Not Prevent a Trial Court From Ordering Preclusion of Evidence as a Sanction If a Trial Date has Not Been Set.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Statute Authorizing Alternative Use for School Bond Proceeds Is Unconstitutional.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That A.R.S. § 14-3952(1) Requires All Beneficiaries to Execute a Settlement Agreement if It Affects Beneficial Interests in the Estate and the Settling Parties Seek Court Approval Pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-3951.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 Applies to Mental-Health Testimony at an Evidentiary Hearing on a Petition for Discharge Filed by a Person Committed under the Arizona Sexually Violent Persons Act.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Any Taxpayer of a Municipality Has Standing to Challenge a Decision of the Municipality’s Legislative Body or Board in a Statutory Special Action in Superior Court under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds Claim Preclusion Bars Assertion of Easement Claims That Rely on Same Facts as Original Action.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Rule 55(a) Requires Notice To Defaulting Party Be Sent Contemporaneously With The Filing Of An Entry Of Default.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Courts Must Determine as a Matter of Law Whether Allegedly Defamatory Material Is Capable of Bearing a Particular Meaning, and Whether That Meaning Is Defamatory.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that A.R.S. § 20-259.03 Does Not Bar Payment of Wrongful-Death Benefits from an Underinsured Motorist Policy to a Person Who Is Defined In the Policy as a Surviving Insured But Who Is Not a Named Insured Under the Policy.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That A.R.S. § 37-527 Violates Article 10, Section 7(A) of the Arizona Constitution by Diverting up to Ten Percent of Certain Trust Land Proceeds to a Management Fund.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that the Doctrines of Replacement and Equitable Subrogation Only Exist Up to the Amount Paid to Release a Senior Lien.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that A.R.S. § 15-901.01 Requires the Legislature to Provide for Annual Inflationary Increases in Each Component of the Revenue Control Limit, Including the Base Level.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That (1) Testimony of Premise Liability Expert Is Admissible Under Rule of Evidence 702, (2) The “Open and Obvious” Nature Of A Danger Is One Factor In Determining Negligence, and (3) Escorting A Person From Premises Does Not Necessarily Absolve Dram Shop Liability.
Arizona Supreme Court Finds Secretary of State’s Ballot and Voter Guide Description of Proposition 204 Sales Tax Measure Not False or Clearly Misleading.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Legislative Council’s Analysis of Proposition 204 Was Not Impartial.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That When a Notice of Nonparty at Fault Specifically Identifies a Nonparty, and Timely Disclosures Explain the Factual Basis of the Fault, the Documents Must Be Read Together to Determine Whether the Notice Complies with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Prop 121, the “Top Two” Primary Initiative, Did Not Violate the Separate Amendment Rule.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Courts Must Determine Whether Rule 77(f) Applies Before Imposing Rule 68(g) Sanctions.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that Appraiser May Be Liable to Third Parties for Negligent Misrepresentation Despite Provision in Appraisal Stating that Appraisal Is Not Intended to Be Relied Upon by Third Parties.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that a Plaintiff Cannot Shift the Burden of Proof to the Defendant by Filing a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Creates a Split with Division Two in Holding That a Party Who Has Been Defaulted in a Liquidated Damages Case for Failure to Appear Is Not Entitled to Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard on Damages Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Statutory Requirements for Standard-of-Care Experts in Medical Malpractice Suits Apply to Experts in Malpractice Suits Involving Vulnerable Adults Under the Adult Protective Services Act.

References: § 12
 § 19
 § 48
 § 12
 § 33
 § 33
 § 8902
 § 44
 § 33
 § 9
 § 20
 § 41
 § 12
 § 20
 § 12
 § 33
 v. 
 § 14
 § 14
 § 9
 § 20
 § 37
 § 15