Source: http://www.omlaw.com/azapp-blog/postings/2008/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:17:53+00:00

Document:
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That An Outpatient Treatment Center, as Described in A.R.S. § 36-405(B)(1) and A.A.C. R9-10-101(39), May Be Owned by Persons Who Are Not Licensed Physicians or Chiropractors.
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, Holds that Trial Court May Award Attorneys’ Fees Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) to Defendants in Contract Action That Is Dismissed Without Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds that a Lapsed Gift of Residuary Trust Assets Passes to the Other Residual Beneficiaries Identified in the Trust, Not to the Trustor’s Heirs According to the Law of Intestacy.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That City Funding of a Private Parking Structure Violates Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Notice of Claim Letter Need Not Include All Facts Known to Claimant About Alleged Wrongdoing and Need Not Contain Separate Settlement Sums for Each Defendant.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division Two Holds that Arizona Courts May Vacate an Arbitration Award Because of Undue Means Only When There Exists Proof that an Arbitrating Party Engaged in Intentional Misconduct.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That 2000 Amendment to A.R.S. § 43-1170 Retroactively Excluding Motor Vehicle Equipment from Tax Credit for Pollution Control Devices Did Not Violate Due Process or Separation of Powers Clauses.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That Purchaser of a Vehicle Who Loses Financing for the Vehicle is Still Considered a “Customer” Under the Exclusion Provision of a Car Dealership’s Garage Coverage Insurance Policy.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That Referendum Petitions Must Strictly Comply with A.R.S. § 19-101(A), Which Requires Them to Identify the Principle Provisions of the Challenged Government Acts.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds that a Damron/Morris Agreement Can Be Enforceable even if the Agreement Arises out of an Indemnity and Hold-Harmless Provision Within a Property Easement Agreement, Rather Than an Insurance Contract, But the Ultimate Liability of the Indemnitor Will Depend on the Language and Intent of the Underlying Indemnity Provision.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Affirms That Adult Service Providers Are Not Entitled to a Jury Trial for Violating Provisions of the Scottsdale City Code Governing Adult Service Providers.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Retraction of Anticipatory Repudiation of Contract Must Be Clear and Unequivocal to Be Effective.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 14-3110 Precludes Damages for Loss of Enjoyment of Life But Does Not Preclude Recovery of Punitive Damages.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds that the Ten-Day Limitation for Judicial Review Contained in A.R.S. § 19-122(A) Applies to Challenges to the Secretary of State’s Actions Under A.R.S. § 19-121.01, Including the Disqualification of Signature Sheets and Signatures Submitted in Support of an Initiative.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That “Narrow Form” Indemnity Provision That Limits Indemnity Obligation to the Extent of Indemnitor’s Fault Does Not Create Any Up-Front Duty to Defend Suit Against Indemnitee.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Land Owner Does Not Have Taking or Tort Claims Where Increase of River’s Water Levels Interfered with Mining Operation.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds Liability-Limitation Clauses Do Not Violate Public Policy, and Do Not Require Submission To A Jury As An Assumption of Risk Defense.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Summary Judgment and Dismissal Against Attorney on Malicious Prosecution and Aiding and Abetting Complaint Reversed.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds that a Business that Meets the Definition of a “Retail Tobacco Store” Under A.R.S. § 36-601.01 Is Excepted from the Smoke-Free Arizona Act, Even if the Business Also Holds a Liquor License and Sells Alcohol on the Premises.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That: (1) a Notice of Claim for Wrongful Death Is Sufficient if It Sets Forth Any Facts Supporting the Amount Demanded; and (2) Government Entities Do Not Have a Duty to Identify Individuals Killed During High-Speed Pursuits.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that Surety is Liable for Fiduciary Breach by Principal Resulting from Failure to Repay Funds Misappropriated from Estate Prior to the Inception of the Suretyship.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that an Independent Appraiser May Change His Opinion About a Property’s Value After He Has Issued an Initial Appraisal Report.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Initiative Petition Substantially Complies With Statutory and Constitutional Requirements.
Appellate Practice Section’s Seventh Annual "First Monday: A Preview of the Supreme Court’s Pending Term".
The Arizona Supreme Court issued its minutes and granted review in 3 cases.
Governor Janet Napolitano has appointed Margaret H. Downie.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That Lien Holder’s Use of Regular U.S. Mail Rather Than Certified Mail to Serve a Notice of Intent to Foreclose Does Not Deprive a Court of Jurisdiction to Hear a Tax Lien Foreclosure Action.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A City Is Not Entitled to Absolute Immunity when No Actual Decision is Made on Legislation.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Company Providing Outsourced Directory Assistance to Telecommunications Companies Is Not Itself Engaged in the Telecommunications Business for Purposes of a Statutory Exemption to the Arizona Transaction Privilege Tax.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That a Petition for Involuntary Treatment Requires Two Physicians to Submit Affidavits and Give Testimony Concerning the Patient’s Mental Health and Need for Treatment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Care Provided By A Spouse To An Injured Claimant In the Marital Home, Where Such Care Does Not Involve “Medical” Services or “Skilled” Care, Is Not Compensable “Other Treatment” Under Worker’s Compensation Statute.
Governor to Interview Court of Appeal Nominees Later This Month.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Firefighter Rule Precludes Negligence Action by Survivors of Slain Police Officers Alleging that Defendant Mental Health Providers Failed to Properly Diagnose and Treat Man Who Later Shot and Killed Officers.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds (1) A.R.S. § 14-3108(4) of the Probate Code Does Not Preclude a Personal Representative from Bringing an Action for Financial Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult Pursuant to A.R.S. § 46-456 on Behalf of the Estate, Even Though the Personal Representative Was Appointed More Than Two Years After the Decedent’s Death, But (2) Personal Representative Lacked Standing Under A.R.S. § 46-456 to Bring a Claim in an Individual, Rather Than a Representative, Capacity.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That in A Medical Malpractice Case Involving Res Ipsa Loquitor and Multiple Defendants, the Plaintiff Must Identify Which Defendant Controlled the Injury-Causing Instrumentality.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Residential Homebuyers May Bring Suit for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Against a New Home Builder Who Is Not Also the Vendor of the Home.
Arizona Supreme Court, in Division, Holds Violation of ARCAP 8.1(c) is Not Jurisdictional and Reaffirms “Substantial Compliance” Standard for Nomination Petitions’ Conformity with Statutory Requirements.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Signatures on a Nominating Petition That Provide Only a Post Office Box Address Are Not Invalid As a Matter of Law.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That an Attorneys' Fees Award Arising From a Lawsuit Against the Husband Relating to His Premarital Conduct Was a Premarital Separate Debt, Even Though the Attorneys' Fees Were Incurred After the Marriage.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Arizona’s Notice of Claim Statute is Satisfied When a Claimant Provides the Government with a Definite and Exact Amount for Which the Government’s Liability can be Satisfied and an Explanation of How Past Events Have Harmed the Claimant.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That in the Absence of a Statement in a Petition Circulator’s Affidavit That the Printed Names and Addresses Were Printed in the Circulator’s Presence, and Alteration to a Printed Name or Address Does Not Result in a False Affidavit, and Therefore, Only the Altered Signatures Are Invalid.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds that Restitution Statute Requires Consideration of Any Benefits Conferred on Victim When Determining Criminal Restitution for Violations of Contractor Licensing Statutes.
Commission Interviewing 9 Applicants August 25.
Commission Meeting August 5, 2008 to Consider Twelve Court of Appeals’ Applicants.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Process Under the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Recognition of Tribal Court Civil Judgments Need Not Be Followed Before Tribal Court Judgment May Be Given Preclusive Effect.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds Water Owners Can Have Standing for Conversion Claim Concerning Water That Has Become Personal Property, and Treble Damages Are Not a Form of Punitive Damages.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Title Insurance Policy Exclusion For “Failure to Pay Value” Applies When An Insured Is Not a Bona Fide Purchaser Protected By Recording Statutes And That Exclusion For Risks “Created” By Insureds Applies When An Insured Intends the Act Causing the Defect.
Arizona Court OfAppeals Division One Holds That (1) Sufficient Evidence Supported Title Company’s Liability For Aiding And Abetting A New Employee’s Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Against Previous Employer, A Competing Title Company; (2) Punitive Damages Were Not Improper for Commercial Business Tort, But (3) The Amount Of Punitive Damages Was Unconstitutionally Excessive.
Arizona Supreme Court Declines to Adopt the More Fact-Specific Pleading Standard Adopted By The United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That the Rule Against Perpetuities Does Not Render Void a Commercial Real Estate Sales Agreement That Fails to Include a Specific Time Period for Performance if it is Reasonable to Conclude the Parties Intended Performance Within a Reasonable Time Period.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a County Board of Supervisors May Require a County Officer To Post a Bond, and May Remove the Officer for Failure To Post the Bond, but That the County Must Pay the Bond Premiums.
Arizona Court OfAppeals Division One Holds That Constable Was Entitled To Notice, An Opportunity To Be Heard, And An Explanation Before The Presiding Judge Exercised His Authority To Reduce The Constable’s Duties.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Finds that Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Required Showings of Good Cause and Excusable Neglect to Obtain Relief Under ARCAP Rules 9(a) and 6(b).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Statute Providing Table for Tax Valuation of Electric Generation Facilities is a Guideline, Not a Rule, and Thus Exempt from Requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Arizona’s Notice of Claim Statute, A.R.S. § 12-821.01, Merely Requires that a Plaintiff’s Claim Letter Provide Any Facts Supporting a Proposed Settlement Amount.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 49-497 Confers Standing on an Organization Acting in a Representative Capacity Seeking Declaratory Relief Concerning the Validity or Construction of a County Rule, Even If the Organization Fails to Satisfy a Traditional Standing Analysis.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds that Landlocked Parcel Owner Does Not Have Absolute Right to Enforce Right-of-Way Granted Under Federal Law if Adequate Roadway Already Exists.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That Arizona Courts Have Jurisdiction To Issue Pre-Forfeiture Seizure Warrants For Monies Not in Arizona And Addresses a Variety of Other Issues In the Forfeiture Context.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That compliance with the notice of claim statute, A.R.S. § 12-821.01, is to be determined by reading the notice as a whole, and a defense that the notice of claim filed did not meet the statutory requirements will be deemed waived if the governmental entity has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim prior to asserting the defense.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds that Settlement Payments Are Not Reimbursable Costs in a Successful Indemnity Action Brought Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-684(A).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Court May Not Continue the Hearing on a Petition for Involuntary Treatment Absent a Request by the Patient and, When a Patient Has Been Detained But Cannot Attend the Hearing for Medical Reasons, the Court Must Conduct the Hearing in the Patient’s Absence or Order the Patient’s Release.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds Employee Benefits That Reduce Personal Living Expenses Can Qualify As Income In Calculating Child Support.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) Protects the Substantive Rights of the Non-signing Spouse to a Guaranty and Bars Collection of a Guaranteed Debt From a Community’s Property.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists as to Whether an Insurer Who Unequivocally Defended an Insured For Ten Months, Without a Reservation of Rights, and Who Issued a Reservation of Rights After the Close of Discovery, Waived Its Right to Deny Coverage.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 12-2604(A) Violates the Separation of Powers Provision of the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Claimant Who Has Filed a Notice of Claim Alleging Wrongdoing by a Public Entity Must Amend His Notice or File a New Notice to Preserve Claims for Subsequent Related but Different Wrongdoing by the Same Entity or Employee.
Arizona Court Of Appeals Division One Holds That Patient May Be Removed From Commitment Hearing For Disruptive Behavior Without Advance Warning.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Expert Disclosure Requirements of A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 & 2604 Apply to Res Ipsa Loquitur Medical Malpractice Cases; But Dismissal with Prejudice Is Not an Appropriate Sanction.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That a Husband Who Admits He Is the Father of a Child During Divorce Proceedings Is Precluded from Contesting His Paternity in a Later Proceeding.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that the United States Supreme Court’s 1967 Decision Requiring the Arizona State Land Department to Receive Compensation for Easements on State Land Trust Property For Public Highways Does Not Apply Retroactively.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division Two Holds That Where a Claimant Has Demonstrated Open, Visible, Continuous, and Unmolested Use of Land, the Claimant’s Use Is Presumed to Be Under Claim of Right and Without Permission.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division Two Holds that the One-Year Statute of Limitations in A.R.S. § 12-541(3) Applies to an Oral Contract for the Payment of an Employee Bonus and the One-Year Statute of Limitations in A.R.S. § 12-541(5) Applies to Employee’s Claim for Unpaid Wages.
Arizona Court of Appeal Division Two Holds That School Voucher Programs That Provide Aid to Private Schools Violate Aid Clause of the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that the Statute Requiring Service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President of the Senate Whenever a State Law Is Alleged to be Unconstitutional Applies to Lawsuits Filed Before Its Effective Date, Applies to Facial Constitutional Challenges First Pressed on Appeal, and Applies to Non-Declaratory Judgment Actions.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Botanical Gardens, a Qualified Non-Profit, Charitable Organization, is Entitled to an Exemption From Property Taxes on Those Portions of Its Property Used to Operate a Gift Shop, Exhibit Art For Sale, and Rent to Various Third Parties.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that an Uninsured Respondent Employer May Participate Through Separate Counsel in Workers’ Compensation Proceedings.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Marital Community in Dissolution Action May Be Allocated a Share of the Increase in the Value of Husband’s Separately Owned Business Despite Having Received Nearly All Net Earnings from the Business During the Marriage.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Anti-Marital Fact Privilege Under A.R.S. § 12-2231 Applies in Proceedings for Court-Ordered Treatment Initiated by Petition Filed Pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-533.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds A.R.S. § 12-820.02 Provides Immunity to Public Entities for Negligently Granting Approvals, but Not for Negligently Providing Information.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Acts of Part Performance Must Be “Unequivocally Referable” to an Alleged Oral Agreement to Exempt the Agreement From the Statute of Frauds.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That The Act Of Drag Racing Does Not Automatically Constitute An Intentional Tort For Purposes Of “Acting In Concert” And Joint Liability Under A.R.S. § 12-2506(D)(1).
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That the Mail Delivery Rule Applies to the Filing of Notices of Claim Under A.R.S. § 12-821.01.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that a Notice of Claim Setting Forth a Specific Amount for Which a Claim Can Be Settled Must Precede Any Legal Claim Against a Public Entity, Including Class Actions.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Reaffirms State Land Commissioner’s Appraisal Powers and Upholds Commissioner’s Appraisal Method In Connection with .
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Corporate Principal is Not Personally Liable For Aiding And Abetting Fraudulent Transfer from Defendant Corporation.
The Arizona Supreme Court issued its minutes and granted review in 4 cases.
Arizona Court of Appeals decision that Billboard companies are not entitled to keep illegally constructed signs up just because city officials did not discover them promptly.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Corporate Officers Can be Held Personally Liable for Failure to Remit Additional Charges Made to Cover Transaction Privilege Tax Under A.R.S. § 42-5028.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Exercises Both Special Action and Appellate Jurisdiction to Resolve Zoning and Use Issues for Billboards in Tuscon.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A Court Must Ensure That a Patient has Voluntarily, Knowingly and Intelligently Waived His Statutory Right to a Hearing to Contest Court-Ordered Mental Health Treatment.
Arizona Court Of Appeals Division One Holds That A Subsequent Purchaser Of Commercial Property Can Sue For Breach Of The Implied Warranty Of Workmanship And Habitability Pursuant To An Express Assignment Of That Warranty By The Original Owner.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Redistricting Commission’s Congressional and Legislative Plan Does Not Violate the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Maricopa County Superintendent Has Sole Statutory Authority Under A.R.S. § 15-308 to Offer Educational Services to Maricopa County’s Homeless Children But Must Work Collaboratively With the County Board of Supervisors If County Monies Are Required.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a News Organization Does Not Waive the Reporter-Informant Privilege by Seeking a Declaratory Judgment or Disclosing Some Information About an Informant and That a Trial Court Does Not Violate a Party’s Due Process Rights By Conducting an In Camera Review of a News Reporter’s Declaration Regarding the Identity of a Source.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Gunshot Wounds Suffered By Off Duty Police Officer Acting to Save the Life of A Friend Are Compensable Under Worker’s Compensation Benefits.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division Two Holds That Public Acceptance of a Common Law Dedication of Land May Be Established by General Public Use.
Arizona Court OfAppeals Division One Holds That (1) Claimant Who Contracts For The Rights Of The Insured Pursuant To A Morris Agreement May Assert The Insured’s Equitable Estoppel Claims And (2) Insurance Company Was Equitably Estopped From Denying Coverage Because It Waited Eighteen Months To Notify The Insured That It Was Reserving Its Rights To Deny Indemnity Coverage.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Buyer’s Failure to Fund Escrow on Date Called for In Purchase Contract Was Material Breach.
Arizona Court ofAppeals Division One Holds That the First-In-the-Field Doctrine Does Not Require the Arizona Corporation Commission to Award a CC&N to an Existing Utility Company Over a Start-Up Company.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 23-1028 Only Prevents a Workers’ Compensation Claimant from Receiving Those Benefits Obtained Fraudulently, Not All Benefits.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That the Statutory Valuation Date for Condemned Property Under A.R.S. § 12-1123 Does Not Always Represent the Date of the Taking for Purposes of Determining Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Vacates Temporary Orders of the Family Court Issued As Result of Resolution Management Conference Because Orders Addressed Contested Issues of Fact in Violation of Rules of Family Law Procedure.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Liquidated Damage Provisions in Cooperative Marketing Association Marketing Agreement Are Enforceable Under A.R.S. § 10-2016(D), Without Regard to Reasonableness or Actual Damages.
Arizona Court Of Appeals Division Two Holds That For Purposes Of Arizona Rules Of Criminal Procedure 10.2, 10.5(A), And 10.6, The Presiding Judge In Any County With Two Or More Justice Courts Is The Presiding Justice Of The Peace Of That County.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Agreement to Arbitrate Does Not Conflict with Elder Abuse Statute, and Is Not Voided by Unavailability of Designated Arbitration Firm.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Court May Hold a Relocating Parent in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Orders Concerning a Grandparent's Visitation Rights.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Relocating Parent May Move Up to 100 Miles From Her Physical Location With a Child As of the Date of the Court Order or Written Agreement Granting Custody or Parenting Time.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that City Does Not “Actually Control” a State Roadway For Purposes of Establishing Liability for Failing to Keep It Safe By Merely Offering Design Suggestions.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds that Rule 68 Sanctions May Be Awarded in Favor of Landowner Based on Offer of Judgment in Condemnation Case.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That a Standard Form Insurance Policy Treats the Loss from a Series of Thefts by a Single Employee as One “Occurrence” of Loss.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds Indirect Injury from Court Ruling Does Not Give Standing to Appeal, the Probate Court Cannot Require Heirs to Pay for Investigation of Elder Abuse Claim Unless Claim Was Reported with Malice, and Appellate Ruling Can Extend to Non-Appealing Parties When Justice Requires .
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Doctor Providing Prescriptions Over the Internet Without Examining Patients May Be Disciplined.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Sheriff Arpaio Failed to Promptly Furnish Public Records Requested by the New Times, and the New Times May Be Entitled to Recover its Fees and Costs.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That County Board of Supervisors May Not Discipline Classified Employees of Other County Officers.
Arizona Court Of Appeals Division One Holds That Modification Of A Real Estate Option Contract That Extends The Life Of An Option Is A Material Modification That Must Be In Writing.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds Limitation-of-Liability Clauses in Personal Service Contracts are Not Void as Against Public Policy, but as a Form of Assumption of Risk a Jury Must Decide Their Enforceability.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Avionics Software Installed in Flight Computers on Commercial Aircrafts Can Be Included Within the Aircraft’s Valuation For Purposes of an Airline’s Personal Property Taxes.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Parent’s Child Support Obligation for a Post-Majority Child Continues While Child Is Making a Sincere Effort to Graduate From High School.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Arizona’s Qualified Immunity Statute, A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(1), Applies when a Plaintiff Alleges That the State Failed to Properly Maintain and Communicate an Individual’s Criminal History, and Thus Failed to Retain the Individual in Custody.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Owner Conveying Real Property To Another May Reserve For Itself Any Commercial Groundwater Rights Associated With The Property.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That An Insurer May Not Reduce Underinsured Motorist Coverage Based on the Insured’s Receipt of Workers’ Compensation Benefits.
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Insureds May Assign Claims For Professional Negligence Against Their Insurance Agent To Third Parties.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds that A University Professor Acts Within the Scope of His Employment If His Acts Were Incidental to His Work for the University Even if His Motive for Acting was Personal.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review in the following three cases.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that “Hindsight Rule” Does Not Apply to Products Liability Claim of Defective Warning.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds Escrow Agent Has a Fiduciary Duty to Confirm the Identity of an Individual Listed as a Party to the Escrow Agreement.
Arizona Court Of Appeals Division One Holds That Mandamus Relief Is not Appropriate to Order the Phoenix Chief of Police to Enforce a City Ordinance.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Where a Business Owner Assumes a Duty To Provide Security Services, That Duty Is Nondelegable, and Owner Will Not Be Insulated From Liability For Tortious Acts of Security Personnel Hired As Independent Contractors.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Dram Shop Liability Does Not Attach to Corporate Owner That No Longer Exercises Sufficient Control or Supervision Over the Bar.

References: § 36
 § 12
 § 43
 § 19
 § 14
 § 19
 § 19
 § 36
 § 14
 § 46
 § 46
 v. 
 § 12
 § 49
 § 12
 § 12
 § 25
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 36
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 42
 § 15
 § 23
 § 12
 § 10
 § 12