Between Parties. A shareholder is
entitled to inspect and copy certain
corporate records upon request and
after fulfilling other obligations. If a
corporation does not give access to
a shareholder within a reasonable
time, then a court may order the
inspection and copying and must
then order the corporation to pay
the shareholder’s attorneys’ fees. A
court must award fees if it orders
the inspection and copying of
records, even if the order comes as
a result of an agreement between
the parties reached at a hearing.
Clark v. Anjacko, 1 CA-CV 13-
Medical Liens Not Considered
in Comparing Rule 68 Offer of
Judgment to Final Judgment.
Under Arizona Rule of Civil
Procedure 68, if a defendant makes
an offer of judgment, the plaintiff
rejects it, and the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than the offer, then
the plaintiff must pay sanctions.
When comparing the offer of judgment to the final judgment, the
court must make an apples-to-apples comparison. Thus, the court
should ignore terms in the offer of
judgment that are not addressed by
the final judgment, such as a contingency of the satisfaction of medical
liens. Cuellar v. Vettorel, 2 CA-CV
The State Legislature May Not
Compel a City to Hold Municipal
Candidate Elections on the Same
Day as Statewide Elections.
Article Thirteen, Section 2 of the
Arizona Constitution allows cities of
a certain size to establish a city charter. The city charters for Tucson and
Phoenix both schedule local candidate elections to occur on different
days from statewide and national
elections. In 2012, the Legislature
enacted A.R.S. § 16-204(E), purporting to require that all candidate
elections occur on the same day as
state and national elections, even if a
city charter calls for a different date.
The statute improperly preempted
the city charters and could not be
enforced. A charter city has autonomy over matters of local interest,
including the structure of local
government. The fact that off-cycle
local elections presented a “possibil-
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review or jurisdiction of the following
issues on August 26, 2014*:
Gallardo v. State, 1 CA-CV 14-0272A, 2014 WL 3671571, 691 Ariz. Adv.
Rep. 36; Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-14-0208-PR/A
1. Whether a statutory classification that adds two at-large members to community college district governing boards in counties of 3 million or more people
is rationally related to any hypothetically legitimate government objective,
such as mitigating gross underrepresentation of voters and thereby increasing
a board’s responsiveness to the community, or increasing a board’s ability to
fulfill its governance mission when population growth requires a district to
have many more campuses and to educate many more students than in smaller districts.
2. Whether a community college district in a county of 3 million or more people
is similarly situated to smaller districts, given that the district in Arizona’s largest county – the only county
within the classification by virtue of its 4 million residents – dwarfs districts in all other counties combined
in terms of student enrollment, physical plant, number of employees, and other factors.
ORDERED: Vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirming the Under Advisement Ruling of the
trial court filed March 27, 2014. A written opinion of this Court will follow in due course.
Andy Biggs et al. v. Hon. Cooper/Janice K. Brewer et al., 234 Ariz. 515, 323 P.3d 1166 (App. 2014);
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-14-0132-PR (petition for review granted; cross-petition for review denied)
Issue Presented in Petition for Review:
• “Do individual legislators have standing to challenge a law simply by alleging that a supermajority was
required for its passage?”
State of Arizona v. Anthony Merrick, 1 CA-CR 11-0549 (Decision Order dated June 18, 2013);
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-13-0339-PR
1. Whether Appellant timely requested to represent himself on Appeal when he wrote the clerk of court
requesting pro-se status Twenty-One days before the opening brief was filed for the Appellant.
2. Whether any untimeliness issues should be excused due to prison officials failing to mail letter turned
over to them to be sent to the clerk of court.
ORDERED: Vacating the decision of the court of appeals and remanding to the court of appeals for
reconsideration in light of Coleman v. Johnsen, 690 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 10 (June 13, 2014).
Jacoby A./Jamison A. v. Hon. Woods/ADES et al., 2 CA-SA 2013-0030 (Order declining to accept jurisdiction
dated May 3, 2013; Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-13-0167-PR
1. By not taking special action jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals has rendered the Children unable to obtain
judicial review of whether the juvenile court may grant ADES discretion over the return of the Children.;
2. Even assuming the juvenile court is authorized to grant discretion over placement, failing to take jurisdiction
of the special action precludes judicial review of whether the juvenile court is required to make specific findings before doing so.;
ORDERED: Vacating the superior court decision and remanding to the superior court for reconsideration in
light of Alexander M. v. Abrams, 235 Ariz. 104, 328 P.3d 1045 (2014).
*Unless other wise noted, the issues are taken verbatim from either the petition for review or the certified question.
compiled by Ellen Crowley,
Chief Staff Attorney
Arizona Supreme Court
ity of a statewide interest” was not
enough to trump the city charter,
and to the extent there were competing policy concerns with off-cycle election dates, the “home
rule” in Article Thirteen “entrusts
charter city voters” with balancing
those interests. City of Tucson et al.
v. State of Arizona et al., 2 CA-CV
Arizona Does Not Recognize a
Tort of Forgery. Arizona generally
follows the Restatement (Second)
of Torts. The Restatement does
not recognize a tort of forgery.
Therefore, Arizona does not recog-
nize the tort of forgery. Arellano v.
Primerica Life Ins. Co., 1 CA-CV
Critical of a Candidate for
Elected Office That Does Not
Refer to the Person as a
Candidate and That Does Not
Mention Any Other Candidate,
Election, or Political Party May
Qualify as Express Advocacy
Requiring an Independent
Expenditure Under Arizona’s
Campaign Finance Statutes.
Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 16-901
to -925 set forth registration and
disclosure requirements for political
committees that raise and spend
money to influence the outcome of
an election in Arizona. Even if an ad
does not specifically refer to an indi-
vidual as a candidate and does not
mention any other candidate, elec-
tion, or political party, the ad quali-
fies as an issue-oriented ad to which
Arizona’s campaign finance statutes
apply if a photograph or a drawing