Civil


CIVIL
ALL LINKS ON THIS PAGE ARE PDF FILES AND WILL REQUIRE ADOBE ACROBAT READER


December 28, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0023 . . . . . . . . . City v. Harnish


Does A.R.S. section 9-511 authorize the City of Phoenix to condemn land outside its territorial 
boundaries solely for public park purposes?

December 19, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0674. . . . . . . . . .  Coconino County v. Antco

May a county be prohibited from pursuing alleged environmental violations by the application of the 
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?

December 12, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0764 . . . . . . . . . .  Lohmeier v. Hammer

May an expert of biomechanics testify about the likelihood that physical injury could result from 
a collision, without the scientific basis of his opinion first being subjected to a Frye hearing? 

November 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0250 . . . . . . . . . . . . Kromko v. AZ Board

1.  Is the Legislature immune from suit absent allegation that it violated a constitutional duty?

2.  Is the Board of Regents immune as a matter of law from declaratory or injunctive relief 
to determine if the 2004 tuition increase violates the constitutional provision that tuition shall 
“be as nearly free as possible?”

November 14, 2006 . . . . .  . . . . CV 04-0196 . . . .. . . . . . . . Evans Withycombe v. Western 

Does A.R.S. § 12-552 bar a contractor from bringing a claim for common-law indemnity against a 
subcontractor after the statutory period has lapsed?

November 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kay S. v. Mark S.

1.  Is an attorney who serves irregularly but not infrequently as a part-time pro tem judge in a division of family court authorized to appear before that division representing a client because his service is “sporadic” pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct 81, Application D(3)?

2.  Is an attorney who serves irregularly but not infrequently as a part-time judge pro tem judge in a division of family court prohibited from appearing before that division representing a client because the attorney serves “repeatedly on a continued scheduled basis” pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 81, Application D(4)?

September 26, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 05-0059 . . . . . . . . . .  Hamblin v. State

Was the Maricopa County Probation Department the proximate cause of the victim’s death

September 12, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0369 . . . . . . . . . . Southwest v. AZ Corp. Comm.

1.  Does SWTC meet the textual definition of a public service corporation under Article 15, Section 2, of the Arizona Constitution?  

2.  Does SWTC business and activity “make its rates, charges and methods of operation a matter of public concern" considering the eight factors articulated in Natural Gas Co. v. Serv-Yu Cooperative?  

September 7, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0683 . . . . . . . . . . . . Phelps Dodge v. El Paso

1.   Do the state law claims constitute a challenge to a FERC action?

2.    If so, does the state court have jurisdiction to resolve those claims?

September 7, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0144 . . . . . . . . . . . . Mago v. Mercedes-Benz

Is a vehicle lessee eligible to recover under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312 (2000)?

August 29, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0465 . . . . . . . . . . . .  State Farm v. Premier

Are the principles of comparative fault established by the state legislature in A.R.S. § 12-2506 applicable to the participants in the chain of distribution of an allegedly defective product?

August 24, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 06-0443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Committee v. Riffle

Did appellant fail to strictly comply with A.R.S. § 19-101(A) when it stapled rather than inserted a referendum description to its referendum petitions, thereby justifying the Wickenburg Town Clerk's rejection of the petition?

August 24, 2006 . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . CV 05-0313 . . . . . . . . . . . . Friedman v. Microsoft

1.    Can a court apply a multiplier to a lodestar amount of attorneys’ fees in a class action not involving a common fund when the settling parties have agreed the court should use a common-fund analysis to award the fees? 
2.    In deciding to apply a multiplier in this context, what factors should the court use to determine whether a multiplier is appropriate in this context?  

August 17, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0712 . . . . . . . . . . . Ritland v. AZ State Board

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, must an agency head defer to an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings of fact on witness credibility?

August 15, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0766 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . American v. City of Phoenix

Do the “right to work” provisions found in Article 25 of the state constitution and A.R.S. § 23-1302 prohibit a union from proposing as a topic for collective bargaining, and an employer from compelling, a “fair share” contribution from a non-union employee member of a collective bargaining unit?

August 15, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 06-0309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa

Is HB 4125 an unconstitutional special law?

August 3, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 05-0062  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shea v. City of Phoenix

What is the meaning of the term "manifest error" as stated in Section 303(C)(3) of the City of Phoenix’s zoning ordinance?

July 27, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grubb v. 407417 B.C.

1.    Is a property manager protected against its own active negligence pursuant to a contractual provision that indemnifies it "in connection with" the "performance by [it] of any and all of its obligations" under the agreement except for its "gross negligence or willful misconduct?"

2.    Does the indemnitor or indemnitee have the burden of proof on a gross negligence exception in an indemnity clause?


July 27, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0471 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short v. Petty

What should the trial court consider in determining whether a joint offer of judgment complies with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 68?

July 25, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0355 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bolser v. AZ Registrar Con.

The registrar of contractors revoked a residential contractor's license after the latter failed to adequately perform repair work permitted by prior orders to avoid revocation. Does the superior court have subject matter jurisdiction to review the final decision of the registrar if the contractor failed to seek review of the earlier revocation orders?

July 3, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0663 . . . . . . . . . . . . Fry v. Garcia

Does the court continue to have authority to consider a petition for visitation filed by grandparents pursuant to ARS Section 25-409(A)(3) if the parents marry during the course of the proceedings on the petition?

July 3, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0677 . . . . . . . . . . . . Schwager v. VHS Acquisition 

1.    May a lent employee bring suit against her special employer if she is injured while leaving her place of employment at the end of the work day?

2.    May a lent employee bring suit against her co-employee if he is solely employed by her special employer, and thus they are not in the "same employ" pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1023(A)?

June 13, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 05-0171  . . . . . . . . . . . . .Butch Randolph v. International Fidelity

Does the post-1991 version of A.R.S. § 32-1121(A)(4) permit recovery for materials furnished by an unlicensed contractor who does not perform any installation services when the price of the materials exceeds $750?

May 30, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . .  .CV 05-0271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Brunet v. Murphy

1.    When a statutory cause of action has not yet been filed, is an amendment to the statute that eliminates the pre-existing cause of action retroactively applied in violation of A.R.S. § 1-244 when the statute becomes effective?

 2. Pursuant to ARS § 1-249 may a plaintiff assert a pre-existing cause of action that has accrued, but not yet been filed, after an amendment repealing the cause of action becomes effective?

May 30, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abuhl v. Howell

Is false reporting, which we declared a jury eligible offense in Mungarro v. Riley, 170 Ariz. 589, 826 P.2d 1215 (App. 1991) in light of Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479 (1966), still a jury eligible offense in light of the two part Derendal analysis?

May 11, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0568  . . . . . . . . . . Sun Valley v. Guzman

Can Sun Valley, by way of equitable subrogation, foreclose a tax lien that has already been redeemed? 

May 4, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0436 . . . . . . . . . . . Salib v. Mesa

Does a city ordinance violate the free speech provisions of the First Amendment and Arizona Constitutions by limiting how much of a business’s windows can be covered by advertising signs?

May 4, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 05-0400 . . . . . . . . . . . State Farm v. Connolly

Does a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim filed by a relative who was in the zone of danger fall under the "each person" policy limit of the party who was directly injured in an automobile accident?

April 27, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0407 . . . . . . . . . . . Guerra v. Bejarano

Is the superior court authorized to retroactively modify a child support order that concerns multiple children to the date on which one of the children emancipated when the modification is made in part to account for that event?

April 20, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0466 . . . . . . . . . . . . Waldren v. Waldren

1.     May a former spouse seek relief under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(5) from a divorce decree imposing a spousal maintenance obligation that is non-modifiable under A.R.S. sections 25-319(C) and -317(G)?

2.    Was Father entitled  to a further hearing based on Hamblen v. Hamblen, 203 Ariz. 342, 54 P.3d 371 (App. 2002), regarding the distribution of Social Security disability benefits to his children resulting from his disability?

April 11, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0585 . . . . . . . . . . Carlisle v. Petrosky

Does a trial court have the authority to grant an appealing party's request to voluntarily dismiss the appeal of an arbitration award?

April 11, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0589 . . . . . . . . . . . Progressive v. Blaud

1.    Where a tire tread  is projected into an insured=s motorcycle by an unidentified motor vehicle resulting in an accident, has the Aphysical contact@ requirement of A.R.S. ' 20-259.01(m) been satisfied?

 2. Where a motorcycle collides on a highway with a stationary piece of truck tire tread resulting in an accident, has the Aphysical contact@ requirement of A.R.S. ' 20-259.01(m) been satisfied?

April 6, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CV 05-0079 . . . . . . . . . . .  Martinez v. Green

Can a claim for damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act be assigned?

March 30, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0720 . . . . . . . . . . . .Sobol v. Alarcon

1. Is a person who submits a complaint against a certified legal document preparer to the Board of Legal Document Preparers absolutely immune from civil liability? 

2.     Is a person entitled to absolute immunity when the complaint against the certified legal document preparer is initially sent to the State Bar of Arizona and then forwarded by the State Bar to the Board of Legal Document Preparers?

March 30, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0199 . . . . . . . . . . . . Sobol v. Marsh

Is a person who complains to the Board of Legal Document Preparers entitled to common-law immunity for the statements made in his complaint?

March 28, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0148 . . . . . . . . .  State v. Demetz

Does the annulment of a child's marriage during her minority and before she would have otherwise become emancipated serve to revive the child's unemancipated status, which in turn revives a parent's child support obligation?

March 23, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0827 . . . . .  . . . . Curtis v. Richardson

1.     Did the superior court improperly deny a change of venue for the review of an administrative decision? 

2.    Is the superior court required, pursuant to the changes to A.R.S. § 12-910, to hold an evidentiary hearing even though the plaintiff fails to show an evidentiary hearing is necessary?

3.    Was the ALJ required to change the venue of a Department of Real Estate proceeding? 

4.    Was the administrative decision upholding the refusal of the Arizona Department of Real Estate to issue a license arbitrary and an abuse of discretion? 

March 9, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 05-0217 . . . . . . . . . . Valder v. Keenan

Does the common fund doctrine apply to this wrongful death action?

March 2, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 05-0119 . . . . . . . . Gipson v. Kasey

1.  On this record, does the tort defendant who shares his prescription OxyContin pills with another person at a party owe a duty of care to that person and any additional person to whom she foreseeably shares the pills? 

2.  Is the defendant entitled to summary judgment on the basis of no proximate cause? 

March 2, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 05-0082 . . . . . . . . AZ Commercial Diving v. Applied Diving

1. Did the superior court err in affirming the ALJ’s decision that ACDS did not substantially comply with the statutory requirement that it be licensed before submitting a bid for contracting work to the City of Phoenix?

2. Did the superior court improperly apply the license exemptions for a "requirement contract" under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 32-1121.A.14?

3. Did the superior court lack authority to order that ACDS’s license be rescinded?

February 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CV 05-0129 . . . . . . . . . . . Winn v. Plaza Healthcare

If a personal representative is appointed more than two years after the decedent’s death, can that personal representative prosecute medical negligence and adult abuse claims on behalf of the estate of his late wife?


February 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0801 . . . . . . . . . Falcon v. Maricopa County

Can a party intending to sue a county satisfy the notice-of-claim requirement set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-821.01(A) (2003) by sending the requisite notice to one member of the county board of supervisors?

February 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0203 . . . . . .  . . Mutschler v. Phoenix

1.  May a landowner seek compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause when a government regulation prevents the property from being used to maintain a common-law public nuisance? 

2.   Does the use of property as a live sex act club constitute a common-law public nuisance that is not protected by the Takings Clause?

February 9, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0611  . . . . .  United Dairymen v. Schugg

1.  Is the jury's verdict of no express breach inconsistent with its verdict of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

2:. In the absence of express language authorizing same, will our courts extend liquidated damages recovery to breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

3: Was the trial court's instruction to the jury authorizing an award of liquidated damages in the event it found a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in error?

4: Where the prevailing party on the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim had an opportunity to present evidence of contract damages, but instead relied on its assertion that liquidated damages should be awarded for any such breach, is such party entitled under these circumstances to remand for a new trial on damages?

February 2, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0633 . . . . . . . Hanson v. Rissling Construction

Must a claimant on a lien-discharge bond initiate suit within six months?

January 26, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 05-0196 . . . . . .  In Re: Consolidated Zicam 

Did the trial court err in granting the non-resident defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints against them for lack of personal jurisdiction?

January 3, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0264 . . . . Chaurasia v. General Motor

1) Was there a breach of the limited express warranty?
2) Was there a breach of the implied warranty?
3) Did the claim for revocation of acceptance fail due to a lack of privity?
4) Did the trial court properly award attorneys’ fees under the MMWA where the claim arose out of contract?

December 22, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0816  . . . . . Vales v. Kings Hill

1.  Does A.R.S. § 33-1227(B), which bars challenges to the validity of an association
amendment to a condominium declaration not filed within one year, apply to association
amendments not adopted pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1227?

2.  Was a recorded amendment to a condominium declaration invalid because it contained
additional language inserted by the association that was not approved by the condominium
unit owners and was otherwise ambiguous?

December 22, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 04-0823 . . . . Austin v. Crystaltech

1.  Does the Communications Decency Act immunize an Arizona website hosting company
as an "internet computer service" from state defamation claims?

2.  Does Arizona have an interest in exercising special personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
for a defamation claim under Indonesian law?

December 22, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0819  . . . . . .Stop v. Jones

Is a municipal ordinance setting utility rates an administrative or legislative act which
would subject it to referendum?

December 6, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CV 04-0413 . . . . . Davis v. Zlatos

Did certain transfers of cash and property by an elderly person violate Arizona’s Adult Protective Services Act?

October 27, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0048 . . . . . . . . . . .  Jeter v. Mayo Clinic

1. Are cryopreserved pre-embryos “persons” for purposes of Arizona’s wrongful death statutes. 

2. Does Arizona recognize a cause of action for negligent loss or destruction of cryopreserved pre-embyros.

3. Does the Medical Malpractice Act bar claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to the loss of cryopreserved pre-embryos? 

4. Did the plaintiffs sufficiently allege a breach of a bailment agreement? 

October 18, 2005 . .. . . . . . . . . . .  . . CV 04-0061 . . . . . . .. . . . . AZ Minority v. AZ Indep.  Redistricting

1. Did the trial court apply the correct standard of review and correctly interpret the Arizona Constitution in deciding that the legislative redistricting plan crafted by the Independent Redistricting Commission violated the constitution?

2. Did the trial court correctly enter summary judgment in favor of the Independent Redistricting Commission on the Navajo Nation's challenge to the congressional redistricting plan?

September 27, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0576 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp.

1.  May an arbitration clause in a contract of adhesion be upheld if it does not explicitly or conspicuously refer to a waiver of jury trial rights?
2.   Must there be a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” waiver of a jury trial for an arbitration clause to be upheld?
3.  Does the arbitration clause in this contract violate appellees’ reasonable expectations or the doctrine of substantive unconscionability?

September 22, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0775 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Villalpando v. Regan (Mesa)

Did the Scottsdale City Prosecutor’s recommendation of the Mesa City Prosecutor as a substitute counsel violate the defendant’s right to procedural due process or gave rise to an impermissible appearance of impropriety when the Scottsdale prosecutor had a conflict of interest because the defendant was employed by his office?

September 20, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0701 . . . . . . . . Joffe v. Acacia

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 prohibits the use of "any automatic dialing system" to make "any call" to "any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service."  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(a)(iii).  The issue presented in this case is whether this prohibition applies  to computer generated commercial telemarketing advertisements delivered to a cellular telephone as Internet-to-phone Short Message Service text messages.

September 13, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0810 . . . . . . . . . National v. Marlyn

1.    Is the ten-day notice required for depositions calendar days or business days?

2.    May a party ignore an order of the court and later object to sanctions, arguing that the order was defective?

3. Was the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony of two witnesses an appropriate sanction?

4. Applying Rule 54(b), may a trial court award attorneys’ fees after judgment has been entered?

August 30, 2005 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .  .CV 04-0491 . . . . . . . . . Phelps Dodge v. ADWR

Can the Arizona Department of Water Resources issue a permit for in situ use of streams amounting to an appropriation of water rights without requiring a diversion of the water?

August 23, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0237 . . . . . . . . Brebaugh v. Deane

1. Can stock options received during marriage which do not vest until after service of process be separate property? 

2. Is there a single formula to use to divide unvested options? 

August 18, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0507 . . . . . . . . Mobile Community v. Maricopa County

Is the two-thirds majority vote requirement of A.R.S. § 11-824 satisfied by a three-to-one vote when one member of the board of supervisors is disqualified from voting?

August 18, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0377 . . . . . . . . . Kohler v. Kohler

1.  In dividing community property upon dissolution of marriage, did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to subtract the costs of sale of the marital residence from the share of equity assigned to the spouse not awarded the residence? 

2:.  Was husband entitled under Kelly v. Kelly, 198 Ariz. 307, 9 P.3d 1046 (2000), to an exemption of a portion of his retirement plan contributions from division as community property when these contributions were made in lieu of contributions to Social Security and wife used community funds during marriage to contribute to Social Security?

August 18, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0717 . . . . . . . Urias v. PCS Health Systems

After an insurer was placed into receivership, could another company retain funds owed to the insurer as an offset against the indebtedness the insurer owed to the other company, under A.R.S. §§ 20-638, which authorizes the setoff of "mutual debts"? 

June 30, 2005 . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0815 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Ottaway v. Phoenix 

Is  a defendant charged with interfering with a judicial proceeding in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2) entitled to a jury trial?

June 28, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0609 . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .  Double AA v. Grand State

1.    May the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply in Arizona to a bid submitted by a construction subcontractor to a general contractor? 

2.     To determine if an agreement for the provision of goods and services comes within the statute of frauds regarding sales of goods, A.R.S. § 44-101(4), must a court evaluate the predominant purpose and nature of the transaction?

3.     Is A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) applicable to support an award of attorneys' fees in a promissory estoppel claim?

June 23, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0687 . . . . . . . . Salerno v. Espinoza


Is a deputy clerk of the Superior Court of Arizona considered a state employee for purposes of complying with the requirements found in A.R.S. § 12-821.01?

May 19, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0452 . . . . . . . . . State v. Jackson

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311(G), must a claimant under Arizona’s forfeiture statute file an answer to a complaint if the claimant previously filed a timely claim?

May 12, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0268 . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Consultants v. Purcell

1.         Does A.R.S. § 16-168 create an independent scheme for access to voter registration information, or do such records remain public records under the purview of the public records statutes, A.R.S. §§ 39-101 to -161?

2. Is a request for "copies of all requests for voter records" a request for voter records subject to the restrictions of § 16-168, or a request for a standard public record, the disclosure of which is governed by §§ 39-121.01, -121.02, -121.03?

3. Does a political consulting firm’s request for voter records fall within the "commercial purpose" prohibition under § 39-121.03(D), or is it a request for a politically related activity expressly authorized by § 16-168(E)?

May 3, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV  03-0605 . . . . . . . . . .  Baker v. Rolnick

Is  a prisoner in a state correctional institution required to exhaust ADOC’s administrative grievance procedures before filing claims in superior court seeking relief under federal law, including § 1983 claims?

April 19, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . CV 03-0650 . . . . . . . .  Fearnow v. Ridenour

When a shareholder’s agreement is unenforceable as an unethical restraint on the client’s right to choose his or her attorney, can the withdrawing shareholder attorney require that the law firm pay the fair market value of his stock pursuant to the Arizona Professional Corporations Act?

April 7, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 02-0656 . . . . . . . . Johnson v. Earnhardt

For purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Act does a dealer “enter into” a service contract with the purchaser of a used automobile, if the dealer agrees to perform the service described in the service contract for the automobile purchase even if that service contract is with a third party?

March 31, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0315 . . . . . . . . . .   Day v. AHCCCS

Are guardian and conservator fees counted as “medical expenses” in calculating coverage for long-term care? 

March 31, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0272 . . . . . . . . . .Jung v. Jung

Must a witness to a testamentary document sign the document before the testator has died?

March 29, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0124 . . . . . . . . Lamparella v. Lamparella 

1. Is A.R.S. § 25-318(B) applicable when a dissolution decree effectuates an explicit property 
settlement agreement?

2. If a divorced spouse wishes to redesignate the former spouse as the beneficiary under a revocable 
appointment of property made by the divorced spouse before dissolution, must the redesignation be in
writing?

March 24, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0168 . . . . . . . . . . .  Stapert v. Az. Bd. of Psy. Ex.

Does the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners have discretion, pursuant to A.A.C. R4-26-308(A) and A.R.S. Section 41-1092.09(B), to waive the timeliness requirement for a motion for reconsideration? 

March 24, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0117 . . . . . . . . . . . .  Smethers v. Campion 

In a medical malpractice case, may an expert witness offering an opinion on compliance with the applicable standard of care be cross-examined concerning that expert's "personal practice" in regard to the evaluation, diagnosis and/or treatment of the medical condition or disease at issue in the case?

March 10, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0438 . . . . . . . . . . . Espinoza v. Schulenburg

Does the fireman’s rule bar recovery under the rescue doctrine for an off-duty firefighter/EMT who voluntarily renders assistance at an accident scene and is injured?

March 8, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 04-0022 . . . . . . . . .  McHale v. McHale

Where the parties to an Arizona divorce have relocated to other states, does A.R.S. § 25-626 allow the Arizona superior court to retain jurisdiction to later modify the support order entered along with the divorce decree?

March 3, 2003 . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 03-0678 . . . . . . .  Hutto v. Francisco

1.    Is a state tort claim for failure to maintain vehicle safety belts preempted by federal law?

2. Does a plaintiff present a triable negligence claim by showing that the vehicle owner failed to reinstall seat belts that the vehicle manufacturer had installed, but a prior owner had removed? 

February 24, 2005  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0121 . . . . . . .  Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

Does a lessee qualify as a "consumer" under prongs two and three of the definition of "consumer" in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Arizona's Lemon Law?

February 22, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 04-0079 . . . . . . . . . . .  Grand Canyon v. Ariz. Corp. Comm.

1.    May the Corporation Commission consider the need for wholesale power in conducting the statutory balancing of need for power with the desire to minimize environmental impacts specified by A.R.S. § 40-360.07(B)?

2.    May a party that intervenes to defend government agency action qualify for an attorneys’ fees award pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-348?

February 17, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0512 . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Gravano

Did the in personam civil forfeiture violate either the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution,
the Excessive Fines clause of the United States Constitution, or the "forfeiture of estate" provision of the
Arizona Constitution?

January 25, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0143 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hayden v. Pegasus

Can plaintiff, an assignee, bring a suit for breach of the implied warranty of good workmanship for construction defects in a commercial building?

January 13, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0727 . . . . . . . . . . .  Cook v. Cook

1.     In determining the validity of an out-of-state marriage that is expressly prohibited by A.R.S. §§ 25-101 and -112, does one apply the law from the state where the marriage was celebrated or the law of the state of Arizona?
2.     Can a marriage recognized in Arizona become a vested right under the Arizona constitution?
3.     Do A.R.S. §§ 25-101 and -112 apply retroactively to marriages that have vested in Arizona prior to the enactment of the 1996 amendments that declare certain marriages void and prohibited?

January 11, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0097 . . . . . . . . . . .  Alley v. Stevens

1. How is interest calculated on late child support installments? 
2. How do you apply child support arrearage payments to the outstanding interest and principal? 

December 23, 2004  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0722 . . . . . . . . . . . Nelson v. Grayhawk

Is a negligent contractor or developer relieved of liability for its own negligence in improving or maintaining a roadway just because a municipality also has separate, non-delegable duty to keep the roadway?

November 30, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 04-0175 . . . . . . . . . United Effort v. Holm

What is the extent of a trial court’s jurisdiction to resolve issues of the existence of a life estate and unjust enrichment in a forcible detainer action?



September 7, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .  CV 03-0700 . . . . . . . . .  . . DeSilva v. Baker

Are probation officers absolutely immune from liability for filing petitions to revoke probation status?

August 31, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0561 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Pargman v. Vickers

May an amended complaint naming a decedent’s estate relate back to the date of the original complaint, which, by mistake, named only the decedent as the defendant?

August 31, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0001 . . . . . . . . . . Western Corrections Group v. Tierney

1. Did the trial court properly rule that a "project expediter" agreement entered with LaPaz County did not involve professional services.

2. Did the court correctly rule that LaPaz County was not equitably estopped from voiding the project expediter agreement due to a failure to submit the job for a competitive bid?

3. Did the court correctly rule that the project expediter was not entitled to recover the reasonable value of its services under the doctrine of quantum meruit?

August 31, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0490 . . . . . . . . Schoneberger v. Oelze

May arbitration provisions in trust instruments be enforced against trust beneficiaries who sued the trustors and trustees?

August 26, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0589 . . . . . . . . . . . .  . .  Fuentes v. Fuentes

Is one-half of an obligor’s income shielded from orders of support by A.R.S. § 33-1131?

August 19, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0518 . . . . . . . . State v. Phoenix Union High School District No. 210

Do the retirement plans that the Phoenix Union High School District offers its teachers discriminate on the basis of age?

August 19, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . .CV 03-0310 . . . . . . . . . . . Premium Cigars v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Insurance

May professional-negligence claims against insurance agents, sounding in tort, be assigned to third parties?


August 12, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 03-0258 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birt v. Birt

Should a trial court vacate a dissolution decree to permit a spouse to seek a change in the allocation of property and child support and to seek maintenance where the other spouse file bankruptcy to avoid paying his share of the community debts allocated to him? 


August 3, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .  CV 03-0074 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Lincoln v. Maricopa County

1.    Did the trial court err by applying a “doctor-bill assumption” that non-hospital charges equal a fixed percentage of hospital charges in order to “spend-down” patients’ excess income and allow them to qualify as indigents under A.R.S. § 11-297(B) (1997) (repealed by 2001 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 344, § 12)? 
2.    Did the trial court err by concluding the Hospitals’ administrative claims for reimbursement sufficiently complied with the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-622 (2002)? 
3.      Did the trial court make unsupported findings regarding each patient’s indigent status and residency, and inappropriately include medical expenses already satisfied by third parties in calculating the reimbursement amount?
4.      Did the trial court err in construing § 11-291.01(A) as precluding the County from reducing its eligibility standards, services or benefit levels from those in effect on January 1, 1981?
5.     Did the trial court err by admitting certain expert testimony and various exhibit summaries?
6.     Did the trial court err by determining the Hospitals’ claims were unliquidated and therefore refusing to award them prejudgment interest?
7.    Did the trial court err by determining the Hospitals were not entitled to attorneys’ fees because their lawsuit was not a mandamus action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2030 (2002)?

July 27, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0645 . . . . . . . . . . . . . California v. American

Is an insured entitled to liability coverage for injuries incurred by a dog bite where the injury occurred in connection with a premises other than the insured premises?

July 8, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Ry-Tan v. Washington Elem. Sch. Dist.

1.    Did the trial court err in finding that, as a matter of law, an enforceable contract had been formed after a School District Board voted to award the contract, but before the formal contract documents had been signed or a formal Notice to Proceed had been issued?

2.    Did the trial court err in determining that the procedures outlined in the Arizona education procurement rules for submitting a claim controlled over the requirements set forth in A.R.S. section 12-821.01 (the general claims statute for submitting a claim against a governmental entity), or in the alternative, finding that the School District, by failing to raise the defense until two years into the litigation, had either waived or was estopped to raise such statutory defense?

3.    Did the trial court err in holding that, based upon public policy and under the circumstances of this case, the School District could not assert a "constructive termination for convenience" defense"?

4.    Did the trial court err in determining that, as a matter of law, certain conduct by the contractor did not constitute a material breach of the contract, and at the same time, holding that questions of fact preclude the entry of partial summary judgment as to whether other types of conduct by the contractor constituted a material breach, thereby submitting those issues to the jury for its determination?

5.    Did the trial court abuse its discretion in utilizing a modified RAJI instruction on material breach and in refusing to give an instruction on the same issue proffered by the School District?

6.    Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence arising out of a a previous contract experience between the School District and the contractor?

7.    Did the trial court commit error in the manner in which it calculated prejudgment interest as part of the final judgment in this case?

June 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0051 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Long v. City of Glendale

Can constructive knowledge of a municipal decision made at an open meeting be imputed to the public sufficient to cause a person's claim against a municipality to accrue on the date of the open meeting pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B)?

June 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0302 . . . . . . . . . .  Thomas v. City of Phoenix

1.    Does the Uniform Building Code require a restaurant to lower the height of a portion of its bar for disabled access?

2.    Did the City act arbitrarily or abuse its discretion by denying a modification of the bar height requirement?

June 24, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0384 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Clay v. Clay

Is a disabled non-custodial parent entitled to a credit toward his/her child support obligation equal to the amount of dependency benefits paid  by Social Security to the child? 

June 17, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 02-0208/0780 . . . . . . . . .  Schalkenbach v. Lincoln

Do potential beneficiaries have either common-law standing or standing under the probate code to enforce a charitable trust when the trust is not limited to a small class of beneficiaries, they are not named in the trust, and have no property interest in the trust, but are only potential beneficiaries dependent on the decisions of the Foundation which administers the trust?

June 8, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0627 . . . . . . . . . . . .  JLF v. AHCCCS

When medical evidence is to the contrary, is a health insurance carrier required by law to provide a woman additional surgery because she believes that prior surgeries have not resulted in the symmetrical appearance of her breasts?

June 8, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0360 . . . . . . . .  . .   Case Corp. v. Gehrke

If a secured party holds a security interest in the proceeds of sale, does that security interest sufficiently identify money proceeds so that a cause of action for conversion of the money exists? 

June 8, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .  CV 03-0036 . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Hayden

Can the State seek to recover child support arrearages through an administrative proceeding when the applicable statute of limitations to recover on a judgment through a court proceeding has expired? 

June 1, 2004 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0233 . . . . . . . . . . . . Bennett v. Brownlow

Can the county require that sponsors of arts and crafts festivals at the Prescott Courthouse Plaza be non-profit organizations?

May 25, 2004 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0184 . . . . . . . . .  Riepe v. Riepe


Can the superior court award in loco parentis visitation to a widowed stepmother pursuant to A.R.S. section 25-415(C) (2000) when the stepchild enjoyed good relationships with both legal parents before the father's death and the child is currently parented by his legal mother?

May 18, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0535 . . . . . . . . . . Merlina v. Scottsdale


1.    Is the State barred by Criminal Rule 13.2(c) from expressly charging both DUI with a .08 BAC and DUI with a .15 BAC?

2.    Is such a charge multiplicitous?

3.    Is proceeding on such a charge reversible error because the charge is unfairly prejudicial or constitutes double jeopardy?


May 6, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0458 . . . . . . . . . Daystar v. Maricopa

May a country treasurer question the propriety of a tax lien foreclosure judgment directing him to issue a deed to the holder of the tax lien when the statutory prerequisite for entry of such a judgment are in question?

April 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0650 . . . . Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc.


Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on a claim of breach of the 
implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 2301-12, et seq. and properly awarded attorneys' fees.

April 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 01-0611 . . . . . . . . Waddell v. Titan


Is an insurer that defends its insured but is accused of breaching its duty to give equal
consideration to its own and its insured's interests in settlement entitled to a reasonableness
hearing following a default agreement between its insured and the tort plaintiffs?

In evaluating the reasonableness of the default agreement between the insured and the tort
plaintiffs, is it the default agreement itself or the resulting judgment against the insured that
is tested for reasonableness?

If the insurer intervenes after default but prior to the damages hearing, may the trial court 
convert the damages hearing into a reasonableness hearing upon the request of the insurer?

When the insurer tests the reasonableness of a default agreement and resulting judgment, is
the insurer entitled to present liability and comparative fault evidence?

April 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 03-0232 . . . . . . . . .Morgan V. Carillon


When a party is dissatisfied with an arbitration result and seeks judicial review, must that party's
application to set aside or vacate the award be filed within the 90 day limitation set forth in 
A.R.S. § 12-1513(A)?

April 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0324 . . . . . . . . Reinke v. Alliance


May a person hold legal title to an automobile even though he has neither applied for nor received
a certificate of title issued in his name from the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Department
of Transportation?

April 22, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0710 . . . . . . . . Maycock v. Asilomar


For the purpose of determining, under the construction statute of repose, whether the extension of time authorized in A.R.S. § 12-552(B) will allow the filing an an action beyond eight years, is the knowledge of the initial homeowner imputed to the current homeowner?

April 22, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0290 . . . . . . . . .  Jangula v. Property


When the Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund is defending a negligent driver in an
accident claim because the driver's insurer is insolvent, is the Fund entitled to an offset under A.R.S. § 20-673(C) for the amount the claimant received from her own underinsured motorist coverage?

April 20, 2004  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0620 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Oppido


Does the requirement to spend at least fifteen consecutive days in jail before being eligible for home detention apply to a person whose sentence for extreme DUI has been suspended pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1382(E)?

April 6, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Redelsperger v. City of Avondale

Is the approval of a conditional use permit a legislative act subject to the referendum power reserved to the citizens of a municipal corporation under Article 4, part 1, Section 1(8), of the Arizona Constitution?

April 1, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0412 . . . . . . . . . . . .  Barrett v. Harris


Did the trial court err by granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law on two of plaintiffs' theories in this medical malpractice case because the evidence did not, in the court's view, sufficiently demonstrate that the defendant doctor's challenged act and omission proximately caused the death of plaintiffs' daughter?

March 30, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 02-0353 ... . . . . . . . . . .  Molet v. Pierce

When A.R.S. § 14-3720 authorizes reimbursement from the estate to the personal representative of attorneys' fees incurred in litigation, whether successful or not, conditioned only on the personal representative having acted in "good faith," is reimbursement also conditioned on the litigation being classified as a "benefit to the estate?"

March 30, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 02-0031 . . . .. . . . . . .  Burke v. Voicestream

1.    Is a non-waiver provision in deed restrictions enforceable to avoid a waiver when several subdivision homeowners have violated the deed restrictions?

2.    In a consideration of the relative hardships, does a landowner who is aware of deed restrictions and of several neighbors' objections to a proposed structure based on the deed restrictions bear the risk of proceeding with construction, in comparison to a neighboring homeowner who does not file suit to enforce the deed restrictions until construction has already begun?

March 25, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 02-0810 . . . . . . . . . . .  City of Phoenix v. PERB


May the City of Phoenix Employment Relations Board consider unfair labor practices charges filed by employees who have sought review of discipline by the Civil Service Board?

March 25, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0056 . . . . . . . . . . . . Martineau/Reyes v. Maricopa County

In an action brought against a governmental entity to challenge the validity of a policy promulgated by that 
entity, where monetary damages are not claimed, are the plaintiffs required to comply with Arizona's public
entity and county claim notice statutes (A.R.S. §§ 12-821.01 and 11-622(A)) as a prerequisite to 
maintaining their action for declaratory relief?

February 12, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0147 . . . . . . . . . . .  Winters v. AZ Board of Education


Must a nexus or sufficiently rational connection between the off-campus actions of a teacher and 
his/her fitness to teach be shown before disciplinary action against the teacher may be taken based on 
such acts? 

February 3, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0736 . . . . . . . Speros v. Yu

Should title to an abandoned roadway within a subdivision be divided between
the abutting landowners or given to the current owner of the lot that originally included the
roadway land?

January 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . .CV 03-0404 . . . . . . . . . Phelps v. Firebird


Does Article 18, section 5 of the Arizona Constitution mandate that the enforceability
and validity of an express release agreement is a question of fact for the jury and not 
to be decided by the court as a matter of law?

January 29, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0520 . . . . . . . . . .Pence v. Glacy

Is a defendant liable for statutory damages under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) (2000) for recording
a deed of trust in the office of the county recorder not knowing or having reason to know 
that the document is ineffective as a lien on community real property?

January 29, 2004 . . . . . . . . CV 03-0270 . . . . . . . . . . . . Raven Rock v. Board


Does the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have the authority to create reasonable
procedural regulations to determine which properties qualify for the exemption from county
ordinances as provided in A.R.S. § 11-380?

Was Raven Rock required to file for an exemption from Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance
Section 1304 prohibiting the parking of "non-accessory vehicles" in a residential district?

January 27, 2004 . . . . . . CV 03-0380 . . . . Derendal v. Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office


Is drag racing a jury eligible offense?

January 27, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CV 03-0123 . . . Schwab v. Ames Construction


Where a party has failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment, may the trial 
court summarily grant the motion, even where the moving party is not, based upon the
record, entitled to judgment as a matter of law?

January 27, 2004 . . . . . . . . . .CV 02-0661 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Safeway v. Guerrero


As a matter of law, are lawyers immune from suit for intentional interference with contractual
relations?

As a matter of law, can there be a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations
when the interference was made to effectuate a Damron/Morris agreement but constitutes
conduct allegedly outside the permissible boundaries for such agreements?

January 27, 2004 . . . . . . . . .CV 01-0068 . . .Phelps Dodge et al. v. Az. Corp. Comm'n


In a competitive electricity generation market, does Article 15, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution
require the Commission to determine the fair value of Arizona property owned by competitive public
service corporations and consider that determination in establishing just and reasonable rates?

Does the Commission violate its duty under Article 15, Section 3 of the constitution to set just and
reasonable rates by setting a range of rates rather than a single rate?

Does the Commission violate its duties under Article 15, Sections 3 and 14 by allowing competitive
market forces to exclusively determine rates that are "just and reasonable"?

Did the Commission lack constitutional or legislative authority to promulgate certain rules governing
competition in the electricity generation market?

Was the Commission required by the APA, A.R.S. § 41-1044(B) to submit certain rules to the attorney
general for review and certification?

Do Article 15, Sections 2 and 3 of the Arizona Constitution limit the Commission's authority to treat
public service corporations differently?

Are the Cooperatives' discrimination claims under Article 15, Section 12 and A.R.S. § 40-334 ripe 
for review?

Does Article 15, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution confer property rights on public service 
corporations that undertake the task of selling electricity and, if so, are these rights protected by the
contract clause of the Arizona Constitution?

Does the introduction of competition in the electricity generation market impair any contract rights
existing for the Cooperatives?

Does the stranded costs provision of Commission rules governing competition improperly supplant
the taking mechanism established by Article 2, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution?

Do provisions in the Commission's rules governing competition that require monopolistic utilities
to submit codes of conduct that adopt policies to eliminate joint marketing with competitive affiliates
violate the Cooperatives' free commercial speech rights under the federal and state constitutions?

Does A.R.S. § 40-254 authorize the superior court to affirm a Commission decision in part, reverse
it in part, and/or remand to the Commission, whether or not the complaining party requests this 
relief?

Are the Cooperatives entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the superior court pursuant to A.R.S.
§ 12-348 for prevailing on the merits in their challenges to the decisions adopting rules and issuing
CC&Ns?  

Did the superior court abuse its discretion by refusing to adjust upward the statutory maximum
hourly attorneys' fee rate prescribed by A.R.S. § 12-348?

January 22, 2004 . . . . . . . . . CV 03-0262 . . . Smith v. Arizona Long Term Care System


Are liability insurance proceeds as yet unpaid considered a resource available to a plaintiff as of
the accident date, which is the date of the resource assessment?

January 8, 2004   . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .  CV 03-0199 . . . . . . . . .  Magee v. Magee


Did the legislature intend that, in order to be eligible for consideration for an award of attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 25-324, the applicant must show that he or she is actually unable to pay his or her own fees?

December 31, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0226 . . . . . . . . . . Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire


1.    Does filing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors bar a plaintiff from filing a breach of contract 
action in superior court?

2.    Does A.R.S. § 32-1153 provide for automatic restitution by an unlicensed contractor?


December 9, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . .. .  CV 02-0421 . . . . . . . . .   Wolfinger v. Cheche

Does surviving a motion for summary judgment act as a per se bar to a subsequent wrongful institution
of civil proceedings claim?

December 4, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0562 . . . . . . . . .  . Downs v. Scheffler

Is family court obligated to make specific findings of fact on the record  concerning the factors
relevant to its custody decision when it considers on the merits a custody petition filed a a person
other than the legal parent?

November 18, 2003 . . . . . . . . . .  CV 02-0363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Owen v. Blackhawk


1.    Does an order designating one parent as primary residential parent constitute an order regarding physical custody?

2.    Did the trial court err in modifying physical custody from mother to father and imposing a long-distance parenting time schedule for mother when father never requested it and when mother never left Arizona?

November 6, 2003  .. . . . . . . . . . CV 02-0555 . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . Douglas v. Governing

May teachers bring a private action for the alleged non-payment of teacher compensation required by 
A.R.S. § 15-952 against school districts that have qualified for additional monies available through application of the statute?

October 30, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . .CV 01-0476  . . . . . .  . Eastern Vanguard v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n


1.  Does federal law preempt state regulation of the off-exchange foreign currency trading
transactions at issue here?

2.  Does "controlling person" liability pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1999(B) require actual participation
in the underlying securities violation?

October 14, 2003 . . . . . . . . . .  CV 03-0072 . . . . . . . . . Johnson v. Mohave County

1.    Is an intergovernmental agreement made pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 11-932(A), - 933(A) (2001) subject to the public auction requirement of A.R.S. § 11-256 (2001) or, alternatively, the unanimous consent exception in A.R.S. § 251(9) (2001)?

2.    Did Johnson bring his claim "without substantial justification," thereby entitling appellees to an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349?

October 2, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . CV 02-519 . . . . . . . . . . Decca v. American Auto Ins. 


Was an action on a subcontract performance bond time-barred because it was brought more than
two years after final payment fell due under the subcontract?

October 2, 2003 . . . . . . . . . .  CV 02-0375 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters

1.    Does A.R.S. § 12-553 provide an equine owner immunity from an ordinary negligence claim 
when the four prongs of the statute are met?

2. Does A.R.S. § 12-553 violate the anti-abrogation clause found in Article 18, Section 6, of the 
Arizona Constitution?

3. Does A.R.S. § 12-553 violate the equal protection rights of those equine riders who are injured
and have signed a release of liability?

September 30, 2003...............CV 02-0424........................................................Mealey v. Arndt

Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the parties acquiesced to a recognizable boundary.

September 25, 2003...............CV 02-0557.......................................................Martinets v. Pinto

Whether the creator of a trust can modify that trust by means other than those specified by the trust.

September 9, 2003.................CV 02-0084....................................................Carstens v. Phoenix

Does the economic loss rule bar a claim against a city and its inspectors for negligent inspection when
the plaintiff suffered no personal injury or property damage from the construction defects?

September 9, 2003.................CV 02-0238..................................................State v. R.J. Reynolds

Does the master settlement agreement between R.J. Reynolds and the State of Arizona limit outdoor
brand name advertising, at each NASCAR site in Arizona, to placement at that site no more than 90
days before the event begins and require the cessation of advertising no more than 10 days after the
last day of such event?

August 26, 2003.....................CV 02-0403..........................................Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel

Did a homeowners' association confer mandatory membership status on owners of lots within an
existing subdivision by recording amended bylaws to that effect?

August 26, 2003.....................CV 01-0438.....................................................Maricopa v. Barfield

Can a health care provider enforce its lien against a tortfeasor's insurer pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-934?

August 21, 2003.....................CV 02-0133...............................................Jachimek v. Arizona

Does the State Pawnshop Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1621 through 44-1632, preempt the City of
Phoenix from assessing a fee for each transaction report a pawnbroker is required to file with
the city?

August 14, 2003.....................CV 02-0475.....................Roosevelt Elem. School Dist. v. State

Whether the superior court erred in ruling that the State violated Article XI, Section 1 of the
Arizona Constitution because the Arizona Legislature failed to fully fund the Building Renewal
Fund according to the formula prescribed in the Students FIRST statutory scheme.

August 14, 2003.....................CV 02-0480.......................................Data Sales v. Diamond Z

Can the signer of a debt guaranty consent in advance to material modifications to the underlying
contract, thus waiving its right to common law suretyship defenses?

August 12, 2003....................CV 02-0212.................................................Nangle v. Farmers

1.  Was the insurer estopped to assert a policy provision limiting the time to bring a claim when
the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay?

2.  Does A.R.S. § 20-1053(A), which requires a standard fire policy, mandate coverage of a
fire loss to an innocent coinsured?

August 12, 2003....................CV 02-0276....AZ Water v. AZ Dept. Water Resources/A.C.C.

1.  Must the Department of Water Resources, in implementing the Groundwater Code, create
and impose conservation measures on customers of municipal water providers?

2.  When a litigant against the government seeks attorneys' fees in excess of the seventy-five
dollar per hour cap contained in A.R.S. § 12-348(E)(2), as permitted by that statute, must
the trial court engage in the normal fact-finding process in order to determine whether the
litigant has proven the special factors necessary to justify such an award? 

August 5, 2003.....................CV 02-0281.............................................Simms v. Napolitano


Does the Arizona Department of Gaming have the implied power to refuse to allow an applicant
for gaming certification to withdraw his application?

August 5, 2003.....................CV 02-0642..........................................Moulton v. Napolitano


Whether the plaintiffs were obliged to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Arizona
Department of Revenue before challenging the constitutionality of the amendment of the
alternative-fuel vehicle tax scheme and whether they had an independent claim for disclosure
of certain public records pertaining to the same plan.

July 31, 2003........................CV 02-0635.....................................City of Phoenix v. ADEQ


Do certain state statutory provisions involving issuance and appeal of a hazardous waste
treatment and storage permit conflict with and are they preempted by federal legislation
(the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)?  A secondary issue is whether
the state statutory scheme conflicts with existing administrative rules applicable to the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

July 31, 2003........................CV 02-0160..........Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association


Are the determinations of a homeowner's association concerning compliance with its own
restrictive covenants entitled to deference by the superior court?

July 24, 2003........................CV 00-0549...................................American Pepper v. Federal


Must an insurer defending a breach of contract claim asserted for the insurer's refusal to pay a
claim prove the policy defense of concealment or misrepresentation by clear and convincing
evidence or by a preponderance of evidence?

June 3, 2003.........................CV 01-0415.......................................Braden v. Yuma County


Do Arizona Revised Statutes sections 11-830 and 11-865 (2001) exempt farm-worker
housing built on agricultural land from complying with county zoning and building codes?

June 3, 2003..........................CV 02-0170.......................................Galati v. America West


1.  Does the federal Airline Deregulation Act preempt an airline steward's wrongful termination
claim?

2.  Did appellant's discharge, assertedly in violation of federal regulations, violate Arizona public
policy under the Employment Protection Act?

May 6, 2003.........................CV 02-0261  CV 02-0597................................Inmon v. Crane


1.  Does the workers' compensation lent employee doctrine provide immunity under A.R.S.
§ 23-1022(A) to the loaned worker and the worker's general employer when the loaned 
worker commits a tort while working for another employer to which his general employer has
leased him?

2.  Can summary judgment appropriately be granted in favor of a general employer who
claims that it is not vicariously liable for the torts of its loaned employee, when there are fact
issues about whether the general employer has surrendered exclusive control over the loaned 
employee's performance of his job functions which gave rise to the injury?

April 29, 2003......................................CV 02-0588.......................Sanderson v. Ford Motor


Does the Arizona statutory scheme governing establishment of automotive dealerships provide
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. standing to object to Ford Motor Company's plan to establish
a new dealership on a county island within the exterior boundaries of the incorporated City of
Phoenix? 

April 10, 2003......................................CV 02-0497........................................State v. Burton


Does a non-resident parent consent to personal jurisdiction as to all issues concerning child
support by filing a petition to modify child support and participating in a hearing on the issue?

April 3, 2003........................................CV 02-0040................................Mezey v. Fioramonti


1.  Does the court have jurisdiction over an appeal from a partial judgment on liability only?

2.  Does the court have jurisdiction over a partial judgment imposing a constructive trust?

3.  Does the court have jurisdiction over the denial of a new trial motion attacking a non-final
judgment?

4.  Did the superior court properly enter judgment for plaintiff on her conversion and fraudulent
conveyance claims?

April 3, 2003........................................CV 02-0428........................Country Mutual v. Hartley


Does A.R.S. § 28-3160 abolish the family purpose doctrine?


April 1, 2003........................................CV 02-0294................................Demko v. State Farm


Whether the principle of underinsured motorist law announced in Duran v. Hartford Ins. Co.,
160 Ariz. 223, 772 P.2d 577 (1989) (finding an "anti-stacking" exclusion in a UIM policy to be
enforceable) is still applicable following the supreme court's opinion in Taylor v. Travelers
Indem. Co. of America
, 198 Ariz. 310, 9 P.3d 1049 (2000)?

April 1, 2003........................................CV 00-0467........................Golonka v. General Motors


1.  Can a jury consistently reject a strict liability design defect claim and find a manufacturer liable
for negligent design?

2.  Did the trial court err in denying the motion for JMOL on the causation issue?

3.  Does Arizona continue to recognize the "heeding presumption" in information defect cases?

4.  Did the trial court properly apply the heeding presumption in this case?

March 27, 2003.........................CV 01-0532   CV 02-0410 ........................Himes v. Safeway

What is the standard and burden of proof in determining the extent to which a Damron/Morris agreement is reasonable and enforceable against an insurer? 

March 20, 2003...................................CV 01-0517...................American Family v. White


The questions are whether, in a homeowner's insurance policy, an exclusion that denies coverage
for injury arising out of "violation of any criminal law for which any insured is convicted" is
a) ambiguous, b) contrary to public policy, c) inapplicable to unintentional crimes, d) contrary to
reasonable expectations, or e) inapplicable to unconvicted co-insureds because the policy's
"severability" clause provides, "This insurance applies separately to each insured." 

March 6, 2003.....................................CV02-0199....................American Casualty v. Withers


Can a general contractor be a claimant on a payment bond under which it is also the obligee?

February 25, 2003............................... CV 02-0328 .............................. Stanley v. McCarver


Does a radiologist, to whom a person is referred, but not by a healthcare provider, who detects a
medical condition for which further inquiry or treatment is appropriate, have a duty to inform that
person?

February 25, 2003 .............................. CV 02-0016 ............................ Petersen v. City of Mesa

1.  Does Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution provide more extensive protection against 
a random, g