by Thomas L. Hudson, Eric M. Fraser and Joseph N. Roth (civil), Patrick C. Coppen (criminal), and James M. Susa (tax). Family Law
summaries are prepared by the Case Law Update Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Arizona.
Thomas L. Hudson, Eric M. Fraser and Joseph N. Roth are attorneys at Osborn
Maledon PA, where their practices focuses on civil appeals and appellate consulting
with trial lawyers. They may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
and firstname.lastname@example.org, and are ably assisted with this column by Osborn Maledon
PA’s appellate group, which maintains azapp.com. AzAPP contributors include Sharad
H. Desai, Joshua Ernst, Chelsea Sage Gaberdiel, Brandon A. Hale, Shane
M. Ham, Kathleen E. Brody, Grace E. Rebling and James K. Rogers.
Patrick C. Coppen is a sole practitioner in Tucson.
James M. Susa is a shareholder in the Tucson office of DeConcini McDonald Yetwin
& Lacy PC.
election matter), the Supreme
Court deferred to the trial court’s
factual findings, rejecting Shooter’s
argument that it need not defer
to the lower court’s fact-finding
because the question whether to
draw an inference is a legal question. Shooter v. Farmer, CV-14-
Nominating Petitions for
Constable’s Race That Included
Photograph of Constable’s
Badge Failed to Substantially
Specified Form for Petitions
Because They Had the Potential
to Confuse or Mislead Voters.
A.R.S § 16-315(A)( 1)-( 4) specifies
the basic layout of nominating
petition sheets and the information
they must contain, stating that
petitions must be in “substantially”
the specified form. Subsection ( 5)
allows nominating petitions to
include a photograph of the candidate. Although the statute does not
explicitly prohibit photographs of
things other than the candidate, the
legislature’s decision to specifically
allow only one kind of photograph
suggests that it intended to
preclude all other types of photographs. Nominating petitions that
include a constable’s badge could
confuse or mislead voters, and thus
do not substantially comply with
A.R.S. § 16-315(A). Clark v.