Herbert F. Krucker

The case involved a dispute over whether Pima County could require a subdivider to provide assurances for off-site improvements before approving a final plat. Appellant Gerard Anderson sued the county and its Board of Supervisors after the trial court dismissed his complaint, upholding the Board's interim policy despite the plat meeting all other requirements. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Board lacked authority to impose the policy because it had not followed the statutory procedures in A.R.S. § 11-806.01, including public hearings and notice. The court reasoned that the Board's zoning and subdivision powers derive from state enabling legislation, making strict compliance with hearing and notice requirements jurisdictional, and that noncompliant measures are void. It directed entry of judgment requiring approval of the plat.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Vend-A-Coin's 15-year Location Agreement with an apartment complex manager to install and operate coin laundry machines in exchange for 35% of gross receipts, with the owner agreeing not to install competing equipment; the agreement was recorded and included a successors clause. After the property was sold, the new owner authorized competitor Leon Ulan to replace Vend-A-Coin's machines, leading to a lawsuit for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract that resulted in a jury verdict awarding Vend-A-Coin damages. The appellate court held that the agreement constituted a revocable license rather than a lease or irrevocable license coupled with an interest, so it did not bind the subsequent purchaser, and Ulan's actions did not amount to tortious interference. The court reversed the judgment and directed entry of judgment in favor of Ulan.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Price v. Sunmaster, homeowners contracted with a contractor for labor and materials to build improvements on their mobile home situated on one parcel of real property; after the improvements were moved to a second parcel, the homeowners failed to pay the contractor, who recorded a mechanics' lien and obtained a default judgment foreclosing the lien on both parcels and awarding a money judgment, all via service by publication after personal service failed. The trial court denied the homeowners' motion to vacate the judgment entered more than two years earlier. The appellate court reversed, holding that the judgment was void because the complaint failed to state a claim for a lien under A.R.S. § 33-981 as the improvements were personal chattels rather than fixtures to realty, and because service by publication could not confer personal jurisdiction for an in personam money judgment, which requires personal service.

propertyprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for possession of heroin for sale and a prison sentence of seven to ten years. The court reversed the judgment and sentence, holding that the defendant's waiver of a jury trial was not reflected on the record as knowingly and voluntarily made, which violated constitutional requirements under Boykin v. Alabama. It further ruled that the initial police entry into the residence was justified by exigent circumstances but the later warrantless search that uncovered the drugs was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected the claim that the prosecution should have been dismissed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 8, finding that any prior dismissal was without prejudice and caused no actual prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a juvenile court order finding that the appellant was not the father of a one-year-old child and alternatively terminating his parental rights. The court affirmed the termination on the grounds of abandonment, concluding that the appellant had failed to make any efforts to support the child or maintain a parental relationship after reasonably knowing of the child's conception and birth. The reasoning was based on findings that the appellant did not contact adoption services promptly, provided no support, had sporadic employment, and showed no interest in the child's welfare, satisfying the statutory requirements under A.R.S. § 8-533 for termination due to abandonment. The court did not address the paternity claims since the severance was upheld.

family law

The case involved appellant's jury conviction for possession of marijuana for sale under Arizona law, based on a vehicle stop and search that uncovered approximately 450 pounds of marijuana, along with related evidence from his home obtained via a telephonic warrant. Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing prosecutorial misconduct that violated his fair trial and confrontation rights, and lack of probable cause for the warrantless arrest and search due to an unverified informant. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the single improper comment implying court-prosecution linkage and other statements were not prejudicial because they were objected to, the jury was instructed to disregard them, and the evidence was strong. On probable cause, the court reasoned that an identified citizen-informant reporting unusual activity was sufficiently reliable without further testing under Aguilar standards, the officers' observations and the smell of marijuana independently supported the stop and search, and the fruits of the search were admissible.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William Michael Shepherd's appeal from his jury conviction for possession of heroin after he was arrested for auto theft and a search of the car revealed heroin under the seat. Shepherd challenged the trial court's denial of his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his heroin addiction, the admission of undisclosed rebuttal testimony from a detective, and the denial of a mistrial after a prospective juror made prejudicial remarks. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of addiction was relevant and admissible to prove knowledge and intent given the defense that others had access to the car, that the state had no duty to disclose the rebuttal witness because the defendant failed to disclose his own defenses under the rules of criminal procedure, and that the juror's comments did not create an irrevocable cloud over the panel's impartiality as the court had inquired and received no affirmative responses from remaining jurors. The court also found the improper rebuttal testimony not sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit brought by tavern patrons injured or killed during a robbery after the owner verbally refused the robber's demands and was shot along with the customers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, the estate of the owner, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that a premises owner owes no duty to comply with criminal demands to keep invitees safe, as the owner has the right to resist crime and protect property without creating an unreasonable risk to others. Drawing on precedents from other states, the decision emphasized that such a duty would improperly aid criminals and conflict with public policy favoring deterrence of unlawful acts over facilitation.

torts & liability

This case was an appeal from a conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery arising from an undercover operation in which the defendant arranged a supposed marijuana deal that led to an armed confrontation at a motel. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly overruled objections to hearsay testimony and denied a mistrial motion, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The core reasoning was that the bulk of the evidence was admissible, including the defendant's post-arrest statements as extrajudicial admissions, and that facts such as directing officers to the motel room, communications with co-conspirators, and the defendant's own admissions established the required elements of an agreement, plan, and overt act for conspiracy.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for first-degree burglary and grand theft after equipment was stolen from a city maintenance yard. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that a police search of the appellant's bedroom violated the Fourth Amendment and that his statements were obtained without Miranda warnings in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court reasoned that the appellant's father validly consented to the search as a co-occupant with common authority over the premises, and that the questioning by the father in the home did not constitute custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings since there was no significant restraint on the appellant's freedom.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an appeal by a natural mother from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her child, who had been placed in state custody by the Department of Economic Security (DES) after incidents including the child's hospitalization for battering. The petition alleged abandonment and willful abuse under A.R.S. § 8-533, and the juvenile court found both grounds existed after extensive fact-finding. The appellate court affirmed the severance, holding that the evidence supported termination on abandonment grounds alone because the mother had made only sporadic, token contacts over years, changed addresses frequently, provided minimal support, and failed to pursue visitation or evaluation despite DES efforts to facilitate reunification. The court applied precedents defining abandonment as intentional conduct showing conscious disregard of parental duties, without needing to address the abuse finding separately.

family law

This special action challenged trial court orders removing a deputy county attorney from prosecuting a criminal case because he had overheard the defendant's statements to police during an arrest and thus might become a witness. The court assumed jurisdiction and directed reinstatement of the original prosecutor after the state offered not to use those statements for any purpose at trial. The core reasoning was that the disqualification order was premature and an abuse of discretion, as the prosecutor had no need to testify for the state, the defense's potential call of him as a witness did not require his removal, and the state's waiver eliminated any basis for disqualification.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lopez, the defendants appealed their convictions for possession of marijuana under A.R.S. § 36-1002.05 after police stopped their vehicle based on an informant's tip and found 128 pounds of marijuana in duffle bags, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge or control, improper prosecutorial statements to the grand jury, and defects in the search warrant affidavit. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, ruling that the quantity and packaging of the drugs plus the informant's details and officers' observations created a sufficient inference of knowing possession, that any grand jury objections were waived under Rule 12.9, and that probable cause justified a warrantless vehicle search despite affidavit shortcomings under Aguilar and Spinelli. The decision relied on precedents like Carroll v. United States and Draper v. United States for automobile searches and constructive possession standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether an auto insurance policy was properly cancelled by the insurer for non-payment of premiums when the cancellation notice was mailed but not received by the insured. The court held that the policy was cancelled upon mailing, as specified in the policy's standard cancellation provision, and directed the lower court to grant summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The reasoning focused on the explicit policy language stating that mailing constitutes sufficient proof of notice, compliance with Arizona statutes requiring mailing for cancellation notices, and the lack of any genuine factual dispute given the postal receipt evidence. The court rejected arguments that receipt was necessary, aligning with the majority view from other jurisdictions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Gonzales, the appellant was charged with driving under the influence while his license was suspended, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 28-692 and 28-692.02. The trial court acquitted him of the DUI charge but convicted him of driving with a suspended license under A.R.S. § 28-1203 based on the preliminary hearing transcript and departmental report. On appeal, the court rejected the claim that the speedy trial motion should have been granted, finding the issue waived by the appellant’s failure to timely assert it. The court also held that A.R.S. § 28-692.02 applies regardless of the reason for the license suspension and that driving with a suspended license is a lesser included offense of the charged violation. The conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute where Joseph Amoroso sued First Recreation Corporation to collect on a $30,000 promissory note and obtained prejudgment writs of attachment on FRC's real property and garnishment on its bank account without prior notice or hearing. The court upheld the writ of attachment, finding that Arizona's prejudgment attachment procedures for real property do not deprive the debtor of a significant property interest requiring notice and hearing under due process precedents. However, the court dissolved the writ of garnishment because its issuance without a court order violated a federal district court injunction from Manning v. Palmer, which required judicial oversight for such writs, and the state procedures lacked provisions for immediate dissolution hearings. The decision rested on distinctions between real and personal property interests as well as compliance with the federal order.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

This case involved sellers of a home who sued their real estate broker and agent after the buyers defaulted on an unsecured promissory note, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence for failing to advise that the note should be secured by a mortgage. The trial court ruled for the defendants on stipulated facts, finding that such advice would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court reversed, holding that a real estate agent has a duty to warn clients that the purchase price should be secured by some form of mortgage in these circumstances. The court reasoned that this basic advice does not amount to practicing law and is consistent with the agent's duty of good faith and loyalty, reinforced by the Arizona Constitution's provisions allowing brokers to prepare real estate instruments.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Bridegroom v. State Bar, members of the Arizona State Bar sued the Bar and its Board of Governors to void the results of a 1974 election on Proposition 108, obtain an accounting of related expenditures, and require restitution, alleging that the Bar was a public corporation whose spending violated Article 14, § 18 of the Arizona Constitution. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that the Bar is an integrated association under Supreme Court rules rather than a corporation, that the constitutional provision does not apply, and that the expenditures were a valid exercise of the Board's authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 1933 State Bar Act's designation of the Bar as a public corporation had been superseded, that the constitutional ban on corporate election contributions does not restrict the Bar from spending its own funds on authorized activities, and that the Board did not breach any fiduciary duty in advocating for the proposition.

electionsbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Belkin, the defendant was charged with armed kidnapping after forcibly taking his wife from a parking lot, displaying a gun, and driving her to a motel, but the jury convicted him of the lesser offense of false imprisonment by violence or menace. The trial court had submitted verdict forms for several lesser included offenses but refused one for simple assault, admitted evidence of the defendant's other marriage as interrelated with the events, and handled issues like jury confusion over multiple verdicts by resubmitting the case with clarifying instructions. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence of bigamy was admissible to explain the circumstances, the jury instructions were adequate and not fundamentally erroneous, assault was not a necessarily included offense of kidnapping, and any prosecutorial violations or other errors were harmless or waived. The core reasoning focused on the absence of reversible error in evidentiary rulings, instructional decisions, and mistrial denials under Arizona law.

criminal lawprocedure

In Romo v. Reyes, the defendant in a pending Cochise County Superior Court lawsuit arising from a July 1973 automobile accident sought to amend his answer to add an affirmative defense based on the two-year statute of limitations after his attorneys inadvertently omitted it from the initial responsive pleading filed in response to the August 1975 complaint. The trial court denied the motion to amend, prompting the defendant to petition the Court of Appeals for relief. The appellate court accepted special action jurisdiction and held that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires leave to amend pleadings to be freely given when justice so requires, that any waiver of the limitations defense is not final before judgment, and that the plaintiff would suffer no cognizable prejudice from the amendment since it did not introduce new issues or parties. The court therefore concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and directed that the amended answer be allowed.

proceduretorts & liability