|
| | 6/27/2024 |
| CV-22-0290-PR | SAN CARLOS v STATE et al/RESOLUTION | OPINION |
| | Kathryn H. King, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 6/25/2024 |
| CV-23-0233-PR | ROAF v REBUCK CONSULTING, et al | OPINION |
| | Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 6/18/2024 |
| CR-23-0029-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v KEVIN DUNBAR | OPINION |
| | James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur in part; Dissent in part
|
| | |
|
| | 6/18/2024 |
| CV-23-0160-PR | IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF QUIJADA/DOMINGUEZ | OPINION |
| | Clint Bolick, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Dissent; Kathryn H. King, Dissent
|
| | |
|
| | 6/7/2024 |
| CV-23-0176-PR | DOVE MOUNTAIN, et al v ADOR | OPINION |
| | William Montgomery, Author; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| | |
|
| | 6/3/2024 |
| CV-23-0181-PR | AMY SILVERMAN, et al. v ADES | OPINION |
| | Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; James P. Beene, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur; John Pelander, Concur
|
| | Constitutionality Decision
A.R.S. § 46-460(A) generally shields from public inspection all records maintained by the Arizona Department of Economic Security concerning abuse, exploitation, or neglect of vulnerable adults. A “bona fide research” exception exists that permits the Department to release these records to researchers. See § 46-460(D)(8). We decide that investigative journalists can qualify as researchers under this exception. We reason, in part, that categorically excluding journalists from this exception would raise serious freedom of speech and equal protection concerns under our state and federal constitutions. |
|
| | 5/31/2024 |
| CR-23-0137-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v MANUEL DAVID PEREZ-GUTIERREZ | OPINION |
| | James P. Beene, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; William Montgomery, Concur; Kathryn H. King, Concur
|
| | Constitutionality Decision
We adopt A.R.S. § 13-711(A)’s requirement that the trial court state on the record its reasons for imposing either consecutive or concurrent sentences, thereby obviating any conflict between the statute and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.13. Accordingly, § 13-711(A) is constitutional because it does not usurp this Court’s exclusive authority over procedural rulemaking provided by article 6, section 5(5) of the Arizona Constitution. |
|
|
|
| | 5/8/2024 |
| CR-24-0092-PR | STATE OF ARIZONA v HON. WEIN/CHEATHAM | DECISION ORDER |
| | |
| | * Per Curiam |
|
| | 5/8/2024 |
| CV-24-0089-AP/EL | ROBERT BACKIE v KIM GEORGE et al. | DECISION ORDER |
| | |
| | * Per Curiam |
|
|