Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Maxwell v. McBryde
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1970-05-28 · cited 2×
This case involved an Arizona state prison inmate who sought transfer to the state hospital for mental health treatment after prison physicians diagnosed him as mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others. The court held that the specific statutory procedure under A.R.S. § 31-224 must be followed for committing mentally ill prisoners, requiring the prison superintendent to file a petition for commitment rather than allowing a general mental health petition under other statutes. The court reasoned that the statute mandates confinement in the state hospital upon such findings, that the prison physicians' opinions on treatment location were immaterial, and that the trial court should direct commitment accordingly.
criminal lawprocedurehealthcare
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1969-06-17 · cited 1×
The case concerned a contested adoption proceeding in which relatives petitioned to adopt a baby boy after the natural mother consented to their guardianship but explicitly refused adoption consent; the mother was incarcerated for forgery and bad-check offenses, the father had died, and the child had lived with the petitioners for about 18 months. The trial court entered an interlocutory adoption order, finding it served the child's best interests and purporting to sever the mother's parental rights, despite making no finding that she was unfit. On appeal, the court affirmed the adoption order but vacated the portion severing parental rights, holding that the interlocutory decree was provisional, that changed circumstances could be addressed before a final decree, and that Arizona precedents permitted adoption based on the child's welfare even without a dependency finding or parental unfitness.
family law
Camacho v. Gardner
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1968-05-21 · cited 8×
This case concerns a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against defendants in a personal injury suit brought by a minor plaintiff. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order vacating the default and judgment, holding that the defendants' failure to notify their liability insurer of the lawsuit could be considered by the court under the discretion afforded by Rule 60(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Sandoval v. Chenoweth, the court reasoned that an insurer need not formally intervene to seek relief and that the liberal policy favoring resolution on the merits supported allowing the motion, even without the insurer appearing in its own name. The decision emphasized that lack of notice to the insurer was one relevant circumstance the trial court could weigh in exercising its discretion.
proceduretorts & liability
Marsh v. Hawkins
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1968-02-28 · cited 11×
This case involved plaintiffs suing licensed private process servers for damages after the servers filed a false affidavit of personal service in an earlier lawsuit, leading to a default judgment that was later vacated. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint on contract, strict liability, and fraud theories, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that private process servers, as officers of the court under A.R.S. § 11-445, are subject to common-law liability for false returns akin to sheriffs or constables, with the statute of limitations running from discovery of the falsity rather than the filing. The court rejected the contractual third-party beneficiary claim but found the other counts viable and ruled that an interlocutory dismissal order did not trigger res judicata. The decision remanded for further proceedings on the false-service claims.
proceduretorts & liability
Riley v. Boyle
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1967-12-01 · cited 17×
This case involved a lawsuit by subdivision lot owners seeking to enjoin construction on another lot that allegedly violated recorded building restrictions limiting dwellings to one story and requiring specific brick materials. The defendants relied on an amendment approved by 51% of lot owners that purported to exempt their lot from those restrictions under a clause allowing changes for the beneficial improvement of the subdivision. The court held the amendment invalid because the power to amend the restrictions extends only to uniform changes applicable to the entire subdivision and does not permit selective exemptions for individual lots. The judgment for the defendants was reversed, and the case was remanded for consideration of the defendants' remaining defenses, such as waiver or abandonment of the restrictions.
property
Mozes v. Daru
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1966-12-06 · cited 36×
This case involved plaintiff Adolph Mozes suing defendants Robert Daru, Seymour Lenwood Schorr, and Norman S. Fenton for alleged malicious interference with his business, seeking substantial actual and punitive damages; the defendants denied liability, raised defenses including res judicata and the statute of limitations, and filed counterclaims seeking damages and injunctive relief against further lawsuits or defamatory statements by the plaintiff. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice, and after a bench trial on the counterclaims awarded the defendants compensatory and punitive damages plus injunctive relief. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of the complaint but reversed the judgment on the counterclaims, holding that the plaintiff had been denied his constitutional right to a jury trial without a proper waiver under the rules of civil procedure, as his objection to a non-jury trial was overruled and proceeding to trial did not constitute acquiescence. The matter was remanded for a new trial on the counterclaims, with the temporary injunction to remain in effect.
proceduretorts & liability