Skip to content

Arizona Appelate Court News

Arizona Defines Dwelling Under Arizona's Anti-Deficiency Statute, Does Your Home Qualify For Protection Under Arizona's Anti-Deficiency Statue?

Recently the Arizona Supreme Court narrowed the definition of dwelling under Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute.  As the Court acknowledged the meaning of dwelling varied throughout case law interpreting Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute.  Previously the Court had defined dwelling to mean to be the purpose or use of building for human abode, that the structure is wholly or partially…

Read More

Who Is Responsible For A Dog Bite?

Who is responsible for a dog bite?  Under Arizona law, an owner of a dog is strictly liable (absent provocation) for injuries his/her dog causes when the victim is on public property or is lawfully on private property.  Arizona law defines an owner as “any person keeping an animal other than livestock for more than…

Read More

To Allow Interest or Not Allow Interest In A Personal Injury Case?

Although it may sound Shakespearean, the question to allow interest or not allow interest in a personal injury case is not so dramatic.  Or is it?  Whether to allow pre-judgment interest is only the first question the Courts had to answer in determining whether a Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest as a sanction under…

Read More

Why Arizona Law Firms Need Outside Collection Attorneys

There are many advantages to hiring outside collection attorneys to collect receivables owed to your law firm.   For instance, if your firm does not engage in collections or civil litigation, it may not be equipped to handle the litigation.  Also, if the client is already not paying their bill because they are mad, they are…

Read More

The Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Law Allowing the Governor More Choices In Filling Judicial Vacancies

In Dobson v. State, the Court struck down legislation that enabled the governor greater influence in selecting judges.  The law in question (HB 2600), allows the judicial commission to submit at least five persons for nomination to the governor.  The Court struck down the law because it conflicted directly with State’s Constitution that provides that the commission…

Read More

Filing Motion For Summary Judgement Does Not Shift Burden of Proof

In Wells Fargo v. Allen, the Appellate Court held that the filing of a motion for summary judgment does not shift the burden of proof.  The moving party’s must stand on its own.  In this case the Court held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment based on deficiencies in the Defendant’s responsive pleading.

Read More

Court Holds That A Rule 55(b)(1) Motion Does Not Require A Hearing and Notice To The Defaulted Party

In v. Trustcash, the Court held  Rule 55(b)(1) does not require the Plaintiff provide the appearing defaulted party notice of the motion for entry of default.  The court held: Given the grammatical construction of the two subsections of Rule 55(b) setting forth separate and distinct procedures for obtaining a default judgment depending on whether the claim…

Read More

Court reverses fee award of $175,098.73 as unreasonable.

Appellants were attempting to recover attorney’s fees of $175K based on fee clause in contract.  The appellants’ agreement with its attorney was a contingency agreement, and resulted in fees of $175K.  Appellant’s attorney admitted that it spent approximately 100 hours working on the matter, and that he did not track his time.  The Appellate Court held that…

Read More
Scroll To Top