leaves no room for an additional
common law remedy for bad faith.
Accordingly, a surety has no liability
if it denies as untimely a demand for
payment made outside of the limitations period, even if the party making the claim had previously made
a timely demand, when the surety
indicates it needs more time to
investigate the claim but would
not be waiving any defenses or tolling any applicable limitations periods. S&S Paving and Construction,
Inc. v. Berkley Regional Ins. Co., 1
CA-CV 15-0239, 5/12/16.
A zoning variance altering the
distance required between a pawn
shop and a residential neighbor-
The Arizona Supreme Court did not accept review or jurisdiction of any issues on the June 13, 2016 agenda.
It did continue the following case:
Kyle Alcombrack v. Robert Ciccarelli & Jane Doe Ciccarelli, 1 CA-CV 13-0148 (Opinion), CV-16-0001-PR, 238 Ariz.
538, 363 P.3d 698 (App. 2015)
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review or jurisdiction of the following issues on May 19, 2016*:
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair, 1 CA-CR 14-0115, 238 Ariz. 193, 358 P.3d 614 (App. 2015), Ariz. Supreme
Court No. CR-15-0337-PR
Issue: “Did the Court of Appeals err when the court held no quantum of individualized suspicion is necessary to justify
the search of a probationer’s home?”
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Oliver, 2 CA-CR 14-0359, 2015 WL 4924747 (Memorandum Decision), Ariz. Supreme
Court No. CR-15-0317-PR
1. Did the “Admonitions” form read to Appellant render his consent to submit to breath testing involuntary under the state and federal Constitutions, when ( 1) the officer repeatedly and inaccurately admonished Appellant he was “required” to “submit” to the test without mentioning
the warrant requirement; ( 2) Valenzuela dealt only with the first sentence of the admonitions; and ( 3) the admonitions do not accurately reflect
A.R.S. § 28-1321, the implied consent statute?”
2. Was the threat of license suspension coercive as regards acquiring evidence for use in a criminal prosecution?”
The Court’s minute letter ordered that review be granted, “vacating the court of appeals’ memorandum decision and remanding the case to the court
of appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Valenzuela, 2016 WL 1637656 (Ariz. April 26, 2016).”
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review or jurisdiction of the following issues on April 11, 2016*:
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez, 2 CA-CR 2014-0168; 2015 WL 4757271; Ariz. Supreme Court No. CR 15-0312-PR
Issue: “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding the trial court properly precluded the defense in opening statement from setting forth the facts
related to his duress defense, on the grounds that such restriction was reasonable since Appellant might change his mind about testifying in
relation to the defense.”
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres Maciel, 1 CA-CR 14-0243; 238 Ariz. 200, 358 P.3d 621 (App. 2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No. CR-15-0346-PR
Issue: “First, did Maciel’s confinement in a patrol car and curbside detention under guard while officers conducted a burglary investigation constitute
‘custody,’ requiring that he receive the warnings Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), mandates before taking a suspect’s statements?
And did this detention and its surrounding circumstances render Maciel’s statements involuntary in violation of the due process protections of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, § 4 of the Arizona Constitution? Secondly, was there a sufficient
corpus delicti to support admission of Maciel’s confession?”
Premier Physicians Group v. Kimberly Navarro & Eddie Navarro, 1 CA-CV 13-0364 and 1 CA-CV 14-0135; 238 Ariz. 156, 357 P.3d 840 (App.
2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No. CV-15-0323-PR
1. “Premier is a non-hospital health care provider. Was Premier’s health care lien untimely (and therefore unenforceable) because the lien was not
Unless otherwise noted, the issues are taken verbatim from either the petition for review or the certified question.
recorded ‘before or within thirty days after the patient has received any services relating to the injuries,’ as required by A.R.S. § 33-932(A)?”
2. “A.R.S. § 33-934(B) requires a party to prevail in an action to enforce a lien before the court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees. Premier
has not prevailed in an action to enforce a lien and may never prevail in such action. Thus, did the court of appeals err as a matter of law by
awarding Premier fees?”
compiled by Ellen Crowley,
Chief Staff Attorney
Arizona Supreme Court
hood is an “area” variance, not a
“use” variance. One kind of property zoning is known as a “use”
restriction, meaning that the property may only be used for permissible purposes. Another type of zoning
restriction is an “area” restriction,
such as a limit to the maximum permissible size of a residential lot or
the distance a building must be set
back from edge of the property. In
general, the City of Phoenix Board
of Adjustment may grant case-by-case variances to “area” restrictions
but may not grant variances to “use”
restrictions. A City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance that there be at least
500 feet between a business operat-
ing as a pawn shop and a residential
district is an “area” restriction simi-
lar to a setback or lot-size restriction.
Regardless of the 500-foot rule, the
property’s zoning classification per-
mits its use as a pawn shop; a
variance of the 500-foot rule would
not alter what uses were allowed in
that property’s zoning classification.
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix, 1
CA-CV 14-0500, 4/12/16.
Recoverable costs under the
COURT OF APPEALS CRIMINAL
Adult Protective Services Act are
limited to taxable costs as defined
in A.R.S. § 12-332. A successful
claimant under the Adult Protective
Services Act may recover “costs of
suit.” The Act does not define that
term. The legislature did not indi-
cate that a claimant under that stat-
ute may recover broader costs than
successful parties with other types of
claims. As a result, the definition of
“costs” in A.R.S. § 12-332 limits
the costs available under the Adult
Protective Services Act. Newman v.
Select Specialty Hospital-Arizona,
Inc., 1 CA-CV 13-0665, 4/7/16.
A trial court errs in a capital
murder case when it fails to independently determine whether
probable cause exists for child
abuse offenses which the State
alleges are aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes