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.
Rader Lucero, PLLC is proud to announce
the change of the firm’s name to
Ms. Sheldon and Ms. Stoutner practice in the areas of dissolution, annulment, legal separation, child support, spousal maintenance,
post-decree matters, child custody matters, paternity matters, pre-nuptials and post-nuptials, and grandparents’ rights.
11260 North Tatum Boulevard suite 143
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
480.636.1888
COURT OF APPEALS CIVIL MATTERS
The referendum process may
not be used to seek statements of
support or opposition for poli-
cy positions or to seek rejection
of settlement agreement. Under
the Arizona Constitution (art. 4,
pt. 1, § 1), the people have the
power to circulate referenda relat-
ed to municipal legislation. The
referendum process may not be
used when a municipality acts in an
administrative, rather than legisla-
tive, capacity. Seeking statements
of support or opposition of policy
positions and seeking rejection of a
settlement agreement are both ad-
ministrative functions, rather than
legislative functions. Consequently,
a proposed referendum addressing
those topics may be properly re-
jected. Respect v. Hanna, 1 CA-CV
14-0801, 9/18/15.
The sale of securities outside
of Arizona by an Arizona company is subject to Arizona’s blue-sky securities statutes. Arizona’s
securities statutes prohibit the sale
of unregistered securities (A.R.S. §
44-1841), prohibit the sale of securities by unregistered dealers and
salesmen (A.R.S. § 44-1842), and
prohibit fraud in the sale of securities. A.R.S. § 44-1991. As long as a
company has more than a ministerial presence in Arizona, its stocks
are subject to Arizona’s registration requirements. Where a company’s principal place of business is
Arizona, its stocks and one selling
the stocks must be registered under
A.R.S. §§ 44-1841, -1842. Federal
law does not preempt Arizona’s
blue-sky laws, and the Arizona
statutes do not impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate
commerce. Shorey v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n, 1 CA-CV 14-
0471, 9/17/15.
The 15-day timeline for filing a Rule 59 motion for new
trial does not start running until
entry of a final, appealable judgment. Under Arizona Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(d), an aggrieved party may file a motion for a new trial
“not later than 15 days after entry of
the judgment.” A judgment is “an
order from which an appeal lies.”
ARIZ.R.CIV.P. 54(a). In general,
when there are multiple claims and
parties, judgments that dispose of
only some claims or some parties are
not final and appealable—only judgments that adjudicate all claims or
the rights and liabilities of all parties
are appealable. Thus, when a party
files a Rule 59 motion for new trial
within fifteen days of entry of a final
and appealable judgment, the motion is timely even if it relates to an
earlier non-final judgment resolving
claims against only one of multiple
defendants. Jaynes v. McConnell, 1
CA-CV 13-0651, 9/15/15.
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 thudson@omlaw.com, efraser@omlaw.com
and jroth@omlaw.com, and are ably assisted with this column by Osborn Maledon
PA’s appellate group, which maintains azapp.com. AzAPP contributors include
Nathan T. Arrowsmith, Joshua Ernst, Chelsea Sage Gaberdiel, Shane M. Ham,
and Brian K. Mosley.
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.
