AZAPP Blog - 2012
Jan
23
2012BNSF Railway Co. v. Buttrick (12/29/2011)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Trial Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction by Granting a Rule 26(c) Protective Order Denying Employer Access to CBA-Required Notices Concerning Injured Employee’s Medical Status.Read More
Jan
19
2012Colorado Casualty Insurance Company v. Safety Control Company, Inc. (1/5/2012)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Defendant May Enter a Damron Settlement Agreement, Assigning Defendant’s Rights Against Primary Insurer, Notwithstanding Defense of Defendant by Excess Insurer.Read More
Jan
18
2012Jan
17
2012Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. (12/28/2011)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds, inter alia, That (1) a Parties’ Prior Course of Dealing Alone Does Not Create an Implied Contract; and (2) an Agency Relationship Between a Developer and General Contractor Is Not Implied and Must Be Supported by Evidence Establishing Such a Fiduciary Relationship Between Parties.Read More
Jan
6
2012BNSF Railway Company v. Arizona Corporation Commission (1/3/2012)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Affirms Arizona Corporation Commission’s Authority over Installation of Horns at Railroad Crossings As Not Preempted by Federal Regulation.Read More
Jan
6
2012The Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, PC (12/20/2011)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds that Rules Regarding the Accrual of Legal Malpractice Claims During Litigation Are Not Applicable Outside of the Litigation Context and Refuses to Decide Whether to Adopt the Continuous Representation Rule in Arizona.Read More
Jan
4
2012M&I Bank v. Mueller (12/27/2011)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That A.R.S. § 33-814(G) Provides Anti-Deficiency Protection to Property Owners Whose Home is Under Construction at the Time of the Foreclosure and Trustee Sale So Long As the Owners Intended to Occupy the Home Upon Its Completion.Read More
Jan
3
2012Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix (12/22/2011)
Arizona Court of Appeals Holds That Mayor’s Personal Privacy Interest Do Not Outweigh Public’s Interest In Disclosure of Public Records Because The City Failed To Show Specifically How Particular Disclosures Would Compromise the Mayor’s Privacy Interest.Read More