AZAPP is a blog that provides a thorough, up-to-date, and efficient resource to stay abreast of significant developments concerning civil cases in Arizona's appellate courts - the two Divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.
AZAPP Update (Subscribe)
Contributors
Archives
AZAPP Blog
<< View Current Articles
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Arizona Supreme Court Issues Summaries of Cases Set for Argument March 23
The Arizona Supreme Court Staff Attorney's Office has issued summaries of the cases to be argued before the Court on Tuesday, March 23. The summaries are prepared solely for educational purposes and should not be considered official commentary by the Court or any member of the Court. The Court will hear two cases: American Pepper Supply v. Federal Insurance Co., involving the question of whether an insurer must establish the contract defense of misrepresentation in a first-party insurance claim by a preponderance of the evidence or instead by the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence, and Phillips v. Araneta, involving the questions of whether the judge in the petitioner's capital trial erred in requiring the petitioner to submit to a mental health examination by the state's chosen doctor and in holding that the preclusion of petitioner's mental-health-related mitigation at the penalty phase of the case was the appropriate remedy for petitioner's refusal to submit to the examination.
The Arizona Supreme Court Staff Attorney's Office has issued summaries of the cases to be argued before the Court on Tuesday, March 23. The summaries are prepared solely for educational purposes and should not be considered official commentary by the Court or any member of the Court. The Court will hear two cases: American Pepper Supply v. Federal Insurance Co., involving the question of whether an insurer must establish the contract defense of misrepresentation in a first-party insurance claim by a preponderance of the evidence or instead by the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence, and Phillips v. Araneta, involving the questions of whether the judge in the petitioner's capital trial erred in requiring the petitioner to submit to a mental health examination by the state's chosen doctor and in holding that the preclusion of petitioner's mental-health-related mitigation at the penalty phase of the case was the appropriate remedy for petitioner's refusal to submit to the examination.
Posted date: Wed, Mar 10, 2004
