Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Bt Capital v. Td Service Co. of Arizona
Arizona Supreme Court · 2012-05-04 · cited 59×
This case involved a dispute over commercial property in Arizona subject to a deed of trust, where BT Capital claimed to be the winning bidder at a 2009 trustee's sale conducted by TD Service Company on behalf of beneficiary Point Center Financial, but the trustee rejected the bid due to a procedural mistake and later held another sale. BT sued for title to the property and damages, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the sale void. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims were mooted by a 2010 trustee's sale at which Point Center Financial acquired the property, and that Arizona statutes governing deeds of trust do not recognize a right to damages for BT in these circumstances. The Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion on the merits.
propertyprocedure
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt
Arizona Supreme Court · 2012-04-25 · cited 22×
The case involved the Norcutts, who purchased a home in cash and used part of the proceeds to pay off an existing first mortgage on the property, unaware that Sourcecorp held a recorded judgment lien against the prior owners that exceeded the property's value. After Sourcecorp sought to foreclose its lien through a sheriff's sale, the Norcutts sued, claiming they should be equitably subrogated to the priority position of the satisfied mortgage. The trial court ruled against them, but the court of appeals reversed, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that equitable subrogation applied because the Norcutts were not mere volunteers and had paid the mortgage to protect their interest, preventing unjust enrichment of Sourcecorp; it limited the remedy to giving the Norcutts priority in sale proceeds up to the amount paid on the mortgage without allowing foreclosure rights. The decision rested on longstanding Arizona precedents like Mosher v. Conway and Restatement principles, applied to the specific facts without adopting bright-line rules.
property
City of Tucson v. State
Arizona Supreme Court · 2012-04-06 · cited 16×
The case concerned whether a 2009 Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 9-821.01) requiring nonpartisan elections and limiting primary voting to district residents applied to the City of Tucson, a charter city whose 1929 charter provided for partisan ward-based primaries followed by at-large general elections for city council. Tucson sued the State, arguing the law did not override its charter authority; the superior court ruled for the State, but the Arizona Supreme Court held that the statute does not displace the city's chosen election method. The Court reasoned that Article 13, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution's home-rule provision empowers charter cities to determine the selection of their governing officers, including the structure of council elections, and that this local autonomy prevails over conflicting state legislation on the subject. The Court vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded for summary judgment in Tucson's favor.
elections
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-11-23 · cited 13×
The case concerned whether Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.8, which authorizes sanctions for a prosecutor's failure to disclose evidence at least thirty days before a plea offer lapses, applies when a prosecutor withdraws an open-ended plea offer that had no deadline. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Rule 15.8 does not apply in that situation because the rule requires the prosecutor to have imposed a deadline; instead, sanctions for untimely disclosures are governed by Rule 15.7. The Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, which had treated the withdrawal as effectively imposing a deadline, and remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings under the correct rule. The reasoning focused on the plain language of Rule 15.8 and the availability of Rule 15.7 to address disclosure violations.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Lehr
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-07-13 · cited 48×
This case is an automatic appeal by Scott Alan Lehr from his 2009 retrial convictions and death sentences for the first-degree murders of two women, M.M. and M.C., as well as related convictions for attempted murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and other offenses stemming from a series of attacks on ten women in Phoenix in 1991-1992. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences after reviewing claims including the voluntariness of Lehr's waiver of his right to attend trial (which the court found was knowing and not coerced by restraint policies) and multiple constitutional challenges to Arizona's death penalty scheme, jury instructions, aggravating and mitigating factor findings, and sentencing procedures. The court applied de novo review to waiver issues, fundamental error review to unpreserved claims, and rejected the arguments by relying on prior precedents or finding no error in the trial court's handling of the case, while noting the life sentence imposed for a third murder count after the jury deadlocked. Core reasoning emphasized that the record supported the waiver, that constitutional claims had been resolved in earlier cases, and that independent review confirmed the death sentences were appropriate.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-07-08 · cited 8×
This special action challenged the qualifications of three nominees to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission under the state constitution's requirements that commissioners not have held or sought 'any other public office' in the preceding three years, nor served as a political party officer or paid lobbyist. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and granted relief in part, disqualifying at least one nominee while allowing others to proceed. The core reasoning focused on the broad text of Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(3) of the Arizona Constitution, enacted by voter initiative, which the court interpreted as imposing categorical exclusions on eligibility without regard to the specific nature of the prior position or the candidate's personal integrity.
elections