Tag Archives: AZ Supreme Court

“Court Watchers”

The Arizona Supreme Court has launched a new website  posting cases currently before the Court.

Agendas and Cases before the Court

On a similar note, Maricopa County Superior Court Media Relations Department  has a High Profile List that can be searched by name, or simply click a time frame and search button. The high profile case(s) that will be heard within the time period or by the name entered will be listed.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under AZ Courts, Case Review, Maricopa Co. Courts, News, Website

All about limited jurisdiction courts.

This article about Arizona courts was originally published in the White Mountain Independent Online Edition newspaper.

 

All about limited jurisidiction courts.

Posted: Monday, August 5, 2013 5:00 am

By Donna J. Grimsley – Special to the Independent

Our court system is the greatest system in the world. It is helpful to understand the various levels and types of courts. As an overview, the Arizona Courts are comprised of 1) limited jurisdiction courts, also known as justice of the peace and municipal courts; 2) Superior Court, the trial court; and 3) Appellate Courts, consisting of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

This article will focus on the limited jurisdiction courts.

Many incorporated cities or towns have a municipal court, also known as city court or magistrate court. Municipal courts have criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanor crimes and petty offenses committed in their city or town. They share jurisdiction with justice courts over violations of state law committed within their city or town limits.

Municipal court judges hear misdemeanor criminal traffic cases, such as driving under the influence of alcohol, hit-and-run and reckless driving where no serious injuries occur. They hear civil traffic cases, violations of city ordinances and codes, and issue orders of protection and injunctions prohibiting harassment. They can also issue search warrants.

City charters or ordinances establish the qualifications of these judges. Some cities do not require municipal court judges to be attorneys. City or town councils appoint their judges. Judges serve terms set by the city or town council; their terms must be at least two years.

With justice of the peace courts, each county’s board of supervisors sets the geographical boundaries, known as precincts, of that county’s justice of the peace courts. Generally, these precincts are larger than city or town limits and typically incorporate an entire city or town and pieces of other communities as well.

Justice of the peace courts hear traffic cases and certain criminal and civil cases, including domestic violence and harassment cases. They can issue search warrants. Their civil jurisdiction is limited to cases involving claims less than $10,000.

Justice of the peace courts conduct preliminary hearings on felonies and determine if the charges should be dismissed for lack of probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty, or find probable cause exists and transfer the case to the superior court.

Justice courts have criminal jurisdiction over petty offenses and misdemeanors; assault or battery; less serious offenses such as breaches of peace and committing a willful injury to property; and criminal offenses punishable by fines not more than $2,500, or imprisonment in county jail for not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment; and felonies for the purpose of issuing warrants and conducting preliminary hearings.

Most justice of the peace precincts have an elected constable. The constable’s duties are to execute, serve and return all processes and legal documents as directed by the court.

A justice of the peace is elected to a four-year term; must be at least 18 years old; must be an Arizona resident; must be a qualified voter in the precinct in which the duties of office will be performed; must read and write English; and need not be an attorney.

Donna J. Grimsley is a judge in Apache County Superior Court.

Leave a comment

Filed under AZ Courts, FAQ's, Research Tips

AZ Supreme Court & COA Div. 1 Opinions

 

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT OPINIONS, MAY 15- JULY 16, 2013

 

CV-12-0349

BRADFORD LUND et al v HON. MYERS et al

Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, John Pelander, Concur, Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur

 

CR-12-0462

STATE OF ARIZONA v KEVIN OTTAR and RUAN JUNIOR HAMILTON

John Pelander, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, Robert M. Brutinel, Concur, Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur

 

CV-12-0156

RALPH and CAROLEE THOMAS v MONTELUCIA VILLAS

Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, John Pelander, Concur, Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur

 

CR-10-0307

STATE OF ARIZONA v JOHN VINCENT FITZGERALD

John Pelander, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, Robert M. Brutinel, Concur, Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur

 

CV-12-0402

STATE OF ARIZONA v HON. BUTLER/TYLER B.

Scott Bales, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur;  John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; John Pelander, Special Concurrence

 

 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS – DIVISION ONE OPINIONS,  MAY 15- JULY 16, 2013

 

STATE v. BUOT – 1 CA-CR 12-0198

Diane M Johnsen, Author; Patricia K Norris, Concur; Jon W Thompson, Concur

 Whether, under Arizona law, when a defendant is charged with second-degree murder, the superior court must admit evidence of the defendant’s character trait of impulsivity to show that he did not act knowingly or recklessly in causing the death of another.

 

BALESTRIERI v. BALESTRIERI – 1 CA-CV 12-0089

Diane M Johnsen, Author; Samuel A Thumma, Concur; Michael J Brown, Concur

Whether Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(g)(1), which states that a request for attorney’s fees “shall be made in the pleadings,” precludes an award of fees to a defendant who does not file an answer but instead successfully moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b).

 Whether a defendant waives personal jurisdiction by filing a request for attorney’s fees with a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

 Whether a defendant who successfully moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction wait to request attorney’s fees until after the court has granted the motion.

 

RSP v. FIVE STAR – 1 CA-CV 12-0545

Diane M Johnsen, Author; Samuel A Thumma, Concur; Michael J Brown, Concur

 Whether the Arizona Prompt Payment Act, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 32-1129, et seq., applies to contracts for the provision of architectural services.

 

STATE v. KENDRICK – 1 CA-CR 11-0849

Patricia K Norris, Author; Andrew W Gould, Concur; Randall M Howe, Concur

Whether a probationer’s unauthorized removal of an electronic monitoring device, required as a condition of probation, constitute escape in violation in of A.R.S.  § 13-2503(A)(2)? 

 

NOLD v. NOLD – 1 CA-CV 12-0214

Patricia A Orozco, Author; Peter B Swann, Concur; Paul F Eckstein, Judge Pro Tempore, Concur

 1.   Whether the family court erred in failing to list the custody factors in Arizona Revised Statute 25-403?

 2.    Whether Father nevertheless waived his objections to the sufficiency of the statutory custody findings by failing to raise this issue in his motion for new trial.

 3.   Whether Father waived his claim for a community property interest in the retirement accounts and life insurance policy by failing to list them in his pre-trial statement.

 4.   Whether the family court erred in finding Father failed to preserve his claim in the retirement accounts and life insurance policy when the retirement accounts were raised in Mother’s pre-trial statement and the family court heard evidence regarding the retirement accounts and life insurance policy.

 

STATE v. BAGGETT – 1 CA-CR 12-0480

Andrew W Gould, Author; Margaret H Downie, Concur; Patricia A Orozco, Concur

 Whether Arizona Revised Statute Section 28-817(A) applies only to bicycles traveling on the roadway at night or whether it also applies to bicycles traveling on a sidewalk at night.

 

STATE v. FRANKLIN – 1 CA-CR 12-0157

Patricia A Orozco, Author; Peter B Swann, Concur; Robert C Houser, Jr, Judge Pro Tempore

 Whether the trial court erred in admitting a victim’s hearsay statements pursuant Arizona Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), the Forfeiture by Wrongdoing hearsay exception?

 

STATE v. REYES –  1 CA-CR 12-0163

Maurice Portley, Author; Samuel A Thumma, Concur; Donn Kessler, Concur

 Does A.R.S. § 13-610 allow the superior court to order a convicted felon to pay the cost of DNA testing?

 

IN RE MH 2012-002480 – 1 CA-MH 12-0077

Andrew W Gould, Author; Patricia K Norris, Concur; Randall M Howe, Concur

 Whether two witnesses who had no physical, in-person contact with the Appellant for several months prior to her involuntary commitment hearing qualify as “acquaintance witnesses” pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute Section 36-539(B).

 

REECK v. MENDOZA – 1 CA-CV 12-0158

Robert Carter Olson, Judge Pro Tempore, Author; Patricia A Orozco, Concur; Peter B Swann, Concur

 Whether this court has jurisdiction over an appeal when the family court has granted a party attorney fees, but that party has failed to file and serve the required application for attorney fees?

 

ALPHA v. DARTT, et al. – 1 CA-CV 12-0361

Margaret H Downie, Author; Andrew W Gould, Concur; Patricia A Orozco, Concur

 Whether towing companies have a constitutionally protected property interest in remaining on a police department’s towing rotation list if the underlying administrative regulations creating the list have not been established through legislative action?

 

CALVIN B. v. BRITTANY B., G.B. –  1 CA-JV 12-0197

Diane M Johnsen, Author; Peter B Swann, Concur, Randall M Howe, Concur

 Whether the court may grant a private petition to sever a parent’s rights brought by the other parent, when the petitioning parent has persistently interfered with the subject parent’s opportunity to interact with their child.

 

PARKWAY v. ZIVKOVIC – 1 CA-CV 12-0612

Philip Hall, Author; Jon W Thompson, Concur; Kent E Cattani, Concur

 Does a party prospectively waive anti-deficiency protections provided by Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-814(G)?

 

STATE v. WILLIAMS – 1 CA-CR 11-0813

Michael J Brown, Author; Andrew W Gould, Concur; Donn Kessler, Specially Concurring

 

When a jury finds a defendant guilty of felony murder and second-degree murder arising from the death of a single victim, should the trial court vacate the second-degree murder conviction prior to sentencing?

 

MELENDEZ v. HALLMARK – 1 CA-CV 12-0141

Donn Kessler, Author; Michael J Brown, Concur; Andrew W Gould, Dissent

 Does an offer for purposes of Arizona Revised Statutes section 20-259.01 require that premium prices for uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance coverage be presented to the potential insured?

 

CABLE ONE v. ADOR, et al – CA-TX 12-0006

Patricia K Norris, Author; Andrew W Gould, Concur; Randall M Howe, Concur

 Whether a cable company that uses its cable broadband network and Voice over Internet Protocol service to provide its customers with local and long-distance telephone service a “telecommunications company” is subject to central assessment by the Arizona Department of Revenue?

 

STATE v. ARVALLO – 1 CA-CR 11-0193

Peter B Swann, Author; Patricia A Orozco, Concur; Thomas C Kleinschmidt, Judge Pro Tempore, Concur

 When testimony concerning violent behavior prompts a juror to express concerns over his or her anonymity and safety, and the juror expresses a desire to shield such concerns from the defendant, is a mistrial required?

 

HAMM v. RYAN – 1 CA-CV 12-0130

Michael J Brown, Author; Samuel A Thumma, Concur; Diane M Johnsen, Concur

 1.  Whether Arizona Revised Statutes section 41-1604, which authorizes a $25 charge for conducting a background check on any person seeking to visit a prison inmate, is an unconstitutional special law in violation of Article 4, Part 2, Sections 19(9) and (20) of the Arizona Constitution.

 2.  Whether, if construed as a fee, the $25 charge is unconstitutional.

 3.  Whether the $25 charge is an unconstitutional tax.

Constitutionality Decision

Holding Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1604(B)(3) (imposing a $25 fee for conducting background checks on any person seeking to visit a prison inmate) does not violate  Article 2, Part 2, Section 19 of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits enactment of special laws.

 

COOK v. PINETOP-LAKESIDE – 1 CA-CV 12-0258

John C Gemmill, Author; Jon W Thompson, Concur; Donn Kessler, Concur

 Does the one-year statute of limitations of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-821 run against a plaintiff in possession of property who brings a quiet title action to remove a cloud on the title to his property?

 

STATE v. ANTHONY, et al. – 1 CA-CV 11-0796

Donn Kessler, Author; John C Gemmill, Concur; Jon W Thompson, Concur

 Whether, in a forfeiture case, Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-4311(G) provides a ten-day grace period for the defendants or claimants to file an answer?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Case Review, Opinions