Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Arizona Supreme Court · Born 1954
Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A.
Arizona Supreme Court · 2012-05-18 · cited 54×
In Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, the plaintiff sought to enjoin non-judicial foreclosure sales on two Arizona properties, claiming the beneficiary banks could not proceed without first proving they owned or were entitled to enforce the underlying promissory notes secured by the deeds of trust. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaints, holding that Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to show the note or prove its authority before a trustee may commence foreclosure. The court reasoned that the governing statutes, such as A.R.S. §§ 33-807, 33-808, and 33-809, impose only limited notice requirements regarding default and the trustee's authority, without mandating additional proof of note ownership, consistent with the legislature's design for an efficient, non-litigious process.
propertyprocedure
State v. Ferrero
Arizona Supreme Court · 2012-04-11 · cited 91×
In State v. Ferrero, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of uncharged sexual acts with the same minor victim in a prosecution for sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court admitted evidence of other acts to show the defendant's sexual disposition without screening under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(c), and the jury convicted on all counts. The court of appeals reversed two convictions, holding that such evidence required 404(c) screening. The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 404(c) governs propensity evidence unless the acts are truly intrinsic to the charged offenses, but evidence of the type described in State v. Garner is not inherently intrinsic. It therefore vacated the appellate decision, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial with proper analysis of whether the evidence was offered for propensity or another purpose under Rules 404(b) or 404(c).
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Styers
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-07-01 · cited 14×
The case involves James Lynn Styers, who was convicted of the 1989 murder of a four-year-old child and sentenced to death by the trial court. The Ninth Circuit identified a constitutional error in the Arizona Supreme Court's prior independent review, which had improperly required a nexus between Styers' PTSD and the crime before considering it as mitigation. The Arizona Supreme Court granted the State's request for a new independent review, considered the PTSD evidence along with the aggravating factors, and concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigation. The court determined that this new review was part of the original direct review process and did not require remand for jury findings under Ring v. Arizona. As a result, the court affirmed the sentence of death.
criminal lawprocedure
Desert Mountain Properties Limited Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-05-12 · cited 4×
This case concerns whether a commercial general liability insurance policy covers an insured's contractual liability for construction defects that resulted only in economic losses, along with related questions about the contractual liability exclusion and the meaning of damages arising from a legal obligation. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to address three specific issues involving policy coverage, exclusions, and voluntary repair expenditures. The court ultimately affirmed the court of appeals' opinion in full, adopting its reasoning on all issues without additional analysis.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-04-21 · cited 18×
The case involved an Arizona workers' compensation claim by Jesus Gutierrez, who suffered a back injury in 2007. The dispute centered on whether a physician rating his permanent impairment should use the Fifth or Sixth Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment under administrative rule A.A.C. R20-5-113(B), which refers to the 'most recent edition.' The Industrial Commission and lower courts applied the Sixth Edition and found no ratable impairment, closing the claim. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that 'most recent edition' means the edition current at the time of the rating rather than when the rule was adopted, as the language indicates an intent for an evolving standard, consistent with other statutes and historical practice. The court further reasoned that this does not constitute an improper delegation of legislative authority because physicians may use discretion and are not required to apply the Guides rigidly if they do not accurately reflect the claimant's condition.
labor & employmentprocedure
State v. Regenold
Arizona Supreme Court · 2011-03-01 · cited 20×
The case concerned whether Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-4033(B) bars a direct appeal from a sentence imposed after a defendant who had entered a guilty plea later contests a probation violation at a revocation hearing. The defendant, Christopher Regenold, had pled guilty to luring a minor for sexual exploitation, received probation under the plea agreement, and after a contested revocation hearing was sentenced to prison; the court of appeals dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute precludes appeal only from a sentence entered pursuant to an admission to a probation violation, not from one following a contested hearing. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute distinguishes between admissions and contested violations, and that appellate jurisdiction is governed by statute rather than by Rule 32 post-conviction procedures.
criminal lawprocedure