Skip to main content
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Garnishment Action May Properly Be Dismissed If an Objection to the Answer is Not Heard Within Ten Days as Required by A.R.S. § 12-1580.B
Yearly Archives: 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County – 5/27/2010
July 1, 2010
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Is a Nonjural Entity Which Cannot Be Sued Separately From the County, That An Adult Child Does Not Have Standing to Bring a Wrongful Death Action Under § 1983, and That Plaintiffs May Claim Punitive Damages Under § 1983.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A Taxpayer Whose Application That Property Be Classified as Being Used For Agricultural Purpose Has Been Denied Does Not Need to Seek Administrative Review Before Filing a Direct Appeal in Tax Court .
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co – 6/22/2010
July 1, 2010
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that a Public Entity Waives a Defense Based on an Insufficient Notice of Claim if the Public Entity Fails to Raise the Defense in a Responsive Pleading or Rule 12(b) Motion, and that the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is Violated When a Party Exercises Contractual Discretion in Such a Way so as to Force Termination of an Agreement.
Hospital – Carondelet, L.L.C. – 5/27/2010
July 1, 2010
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That Defendants Have the Burden to Apportion Damages Among Themselves When the Plaintiff Proves That Each Contributed to the Final Injury.
Ezell v. Quonn – 6/17/2010
June 23, 2010
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That Plaintiffs Must Move to Have a Default Judgment Set Aside Before They Can Appeal, That a Pleading Need Only Have a Concise Statement of the Cause of Action Sufficient to Put the Defendant on Notice, That a Claim for Punitive Damages Need Only Contain a General Prayer for Punitive Damages, and That a Request For an Award of Attorney’s Fees Must Cite the Legal Basis For the Request.