Ann A. Scott Timmer

The case concerned a constitutional challenge to Arizona's Voters’ Right to Know Act (Proposition 211), which mandates public disclosure of major donors funding election-related media spending and the original sources of those contributions to prevent 'dark money' in campaigns. Plaintiffs, including advocacy organizations and individual donors, sued the Arizona Secretary of State and others, alleging the Act facially violates free speech and privacy protections or is unconstitutional as applied to them. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's dismissal, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state viable facial claims but sufficiently alleged as-applied claims under the Speak Freely and Private Affairs Clauses to survive a motion to dismiss and proceed to discovery. The core reasoning was that facial challenges require showing no constitutional applications are possible, a standard not met here, while the as-applied allegations regarding chilled speech and privacy interests met notice pleading requirements.

electionsfree speech

The case involved a contractor, Markham, that performed infrastructure work for a special revitalization district in a master-planned community but received only partial payment after a dispute and arbitration judgment against the district; Markham then sued the underlying landowners for unjust enrichment, alleging they received the benefit of the improvements without full compensation through assessments. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failing to allege improper conduct by the landowners, relying on a prior court of appeals decision, and the court of appeals affirmed in a memorandum decision. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the improper-conduct requirement applies only in landlord-tenant-contractor scenarios and does not extend to this context, so the standard unjust enrichment elements suffice where the owners sought or authorized the improvements. The court reasoned that the statutory financing mechanism does not preempt equitable claims and that factual development on remand would determine liability under established precedents.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Ricky Alonzo Hippensteel, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for stabbing Derek Joseph Odle during a confrontation. The trial court gave the jury incorrect instructions on provocation manslaughter under Arizona law and used a flawed verdict form, though no objection was raised at trial. The Arizona Supreme Court held that these errors qualified as fundamental and prejudicial because the record showed a reasonable jury could have reached a different verdict on the lesser offense if properly instructed, and therefore reversed in part, vacated the court of appeals opinion in relevant respects, and remanded for a new trial. The majority's analysis applied the objective prejudice standard from State v. Escalante to the full trial record, including witness testimony and jury questions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Stephanie Stephens suing Arizona DCS employees for wrongful institution of civil proceedings after a dependency action temporarily removed her children from her care based on allegations of abuse and neglect amid a contentious custody dispute. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that ruling while vacating the court of appeals decision. The Court held that Stephens's allegations, even taken as true, did not sufficiently plead the absence of probable cause for the initial removal application or the dependency proceedings, given the conflicting court orders, prior family court findings, and reports presented to the juvenile court. Dissenting justices argued that material omissions and later recantation of the probable cause finding could support the claim proceeding to trial.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

In this case, Briana Hernandez sought an order of protection against her ex-partner Luis Loarca, alleging that his negative statements about her to their daughter's teachers and principal constituted harassment under Arizona's domestic violence statutes. The trial court granted the order after finding that Loarca's communications were intended to cause Hernandez professional trouble rather than address legitimate concerns for their daughter. The court of appeals reversed, concluding the statements were not directed at Hernandez. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated that ruling, holding that statements to third parties can be directed at a victim when designed to provoke adverse consequences against her, and the trial court's credibility-based findings were supported by the record. The case was remanded for the appeals court to address Loarca's remaining arguments.

family lawcriminal law

The case involved Lee Keller King's application for admission to the Arizona bar, following his 1977 conviction for attempted murder after shooting two unarmed men while intoxicated as a reserve deputy constable. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the application, rejecting the Character and Fitness Committee's recommendation for admission. The court reasoned that King had not sufficiently demonstrated his rehabilitation and good moral character, citing the seriousness of the offense and insufficient evidence of overcoming character flaws, in line with precedent from In re Hamm denying admission to a convicted murderer.

criminal law