Cases

OPINION JONES, Judge: ¶ 1 In this case, the City of Tempe (Tempe) challenges the authority of the Arizona Attorney General (AAG) to investigate a complaint alleging discriminatory housing practices against a municipal corporation. Because a municipal corporation is a “person” subject to the Arizona Fair Housing Act (AFHA), Ariz.Rev.Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 41-14912 to -1491.37, the A

(2008) Candace NORED, Justin Nored, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF TEMPE, Andrew Mazoff, Defendants. No. CV 08-00008 PHX MEA. United States District Court, D. Arizona. June 26, 2008. ORDER MARK E. ASPEY, United States Magistrate Judge. All of the parties have consented to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction over this matter, including the e

OPINION MILLER, Judge. ¶ 1 Section 16-204(E), AR.S., was added in 2012 to require that most municipal candidate elections be held simultaneously with state and national candidate elections. 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 353, § 1. As originally enacted in 1996, § 16-204 limited these elections to only four specified days each year, which the Legislature decl

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CITY OF TEMPE, a municipal corporation; ELIZABETH CHAVEZ, Tempe Housing Services Manager, Plaintiffs/Petitioners/Appellants, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, a body politic, and MARK BRNOVICH,1 in his capacity as Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Defendants/Respondents/Appellees.

3 Ariz. App. 196 (1966) 412 P.2d 878 Benjamin Baker MOEUR, Jr., and Herma C. Moeur, his wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF TEMPE, Hugh E. Laird, Rudy Campbell, Frnak Connolly, Clyde Gilliland, Art Livingston, Dr. Ross Rice, L. Alton Riggs, and Arthur Bunger, Appellees.[*] No. 1 CA-CIV 289. Court of Appeals of Arizona. April 14, 1966.

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STEPHEN RICHER, as Maricopa County Recorder; and the MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, by and through, CLINT HICKMAN, JACK SELLERS, THOMAS GALVIN, BILL GATES, STEVE GALLARDO, Defendants/Appellees. ADRIAN FONTES, in his official cap

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STEPHEN RICHER, as Maricopa County Recorder; and the MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, by and through, CLINT HICKMAN, JACK SELLERS, THOMAS GALVIN, BILL GATES, STEVE GALLARDO, Defendants/Appellees. ADRIAN FONTES, in his official

Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns an endeavor by Arizona voters to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering-the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power. 1 "[P]artisan gerrymanders," this Court has reco

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that Proposition 200’s registration provision violates the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”). See Maj. Op. at 403. I part ways with the majority, however, when it comes to Proposition 200’s requirement that voters provide identification at the polls (“the polling place

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO AEGIS OF ARIZONA, L.L.C., an Arizona ) 2 CA-CV 2003-0057 limited liability corporation, ) DEPARTMENT B ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) OPINION ) v.

81 P.3d 1016 (2003) 206 Ariz. 557 AEGIS OF ARIZONA, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. THE TOWN OF MARANA, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2003-0057. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B. December 17, 2003. As Corrected December 22, 2003.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA DIANNAH DINSMOOR, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 OF MARICOPA COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA; LYNN MILLER AND JANE DOE MILLER, HUSBAND AND WIFE; KIMBERLY HEINZ AND JOHN DOE HEINZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE; KENNETH PALMER AND JANE DO

3 P.3d 988 (1999) 197 Ariz. 68 Andrew C. WARRINGTON, a minor, by his next friend and natural father, Steven M. Warrington; Steven M. Warrington and Jennie J. Warrington, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 98-0537. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. Septem

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, opinion of the Court: ¶ 1 Under A.R.S. § 12-510, claims by governmental entities generally are not barred by statutes of limitations. For actions relating to real property, however, Arizona’s statute of repose provides that, “notwithstanding any other statute,” an action “based in contract” against certain identified parties mus

273 P.3d 624 (2012) CITY OF TUCSON, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee, and Southern Arizona Leadership Council and Senator Jonathan Paton, Defendant-Intervenors/Appellees. No. CV-11-0150-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. April 6, 2012. Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General by James E. Barton II, David

OPINION HALL, Judge. ¶ 1 Pawn 1st, L.L.C. (Pawn), appeals from the superior court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Phoenix, the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (the Board), and members of the Board (col*310lectively, the City) and the real party in interest, William Jaehimek, doing business as Central Pawn. The court

RYMER, Circuit Judge: Felton Hale, John Leroy Fuller and other inmates in Arizona correctional facilities who have worked for state prison industries programs seek to be paid the federal minimum wage on the ground that they are “employees” of the prison under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. They filed complaints against the State of Arizona, ARCOR Enterprises (ARCOR) and its successor Arizona

D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge: Appellants in both Hale and Fuller are inmates in an Arizona penitentiary who work for Arizona Correctional Industries (hereinafter “ARCOR”), making products for sale in the outside world. They brought these actions against Arizona, AR-COR and prison officials, claiming that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (1989), they were entitled to be pa

270 P.3d 902 (2012) BONITO PARTNERS, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, a municipality, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 10-0819. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. February 21, 2012. *904 Gerald W. Nabours, Flagstaff, Attorney for Appellant. Mangum, Wal

¶30 (dissenting) — The issue here is whether a municipality may constitutionally grant an exclusive *110franchise to two corporations to haul construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) debris while categorically denying like privilege to all others. Sanders, J. *110¶31 As no