Latest from AZAPP Blog

Topics:  Effective Brief Writing and Oral Argument; Insider’s Guide to Ninth Circuit Practice and Recent Policy Updates
Date and Time: Thursday, April 4, 2024, 2:00–4:00 pm
CLE Credit: 1.5 hours for in-person attendees
Cost: Free
Reception: A reception will immediately follow the program
Seminar Location: Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix,

A couple filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. They claimed that their motor home, which they used as a full-time residence, was subject to the homestead exemption as a mobile home under § 33-1101(A)(3). Section 33-1101(A) sets out Arizona’s homestead exemption, which renders a single homestead not exceeding $250,000 exempt from execution and forced sale. The

Husband and wife property owners executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust to borrow against their property from an investment company. The property owners defaulted, but the company did not take any action to collect on the debt over the proceeding ten years.
The property owners eventually filed a lawsuit against the

A property owner had landscapers set concrete pavers near the property line with the adjacent property owner. But the landscapers mistakenly placed the pavers so as to reduce the property owner’s land by about 135 square feet and similarly increase the adjacent property owner’s property by 135 square feet. Subsequently, the adjacent property owner occasionally

For decades, an Arizona city entered into agreements with a non-profit corporation to operate a competitive youth swimming program at the city’s pools in exchange for a license for the use of the city’s pools when they weren’t being used for other public programs. Around 2006, a different entity began seeking to replace the non-profit

Consumer purchased an automobile, which was financed by Secured Lienholder.  The automobile served as collateral for the loan. Consumer obtained an insurance policy on the automobile through Insurer. When obtaining the insurance policy, Consumer made misrepresentations—omitting herself as a driver and taking the policy out in the name of her incarcerated ex-spouse. Later, Consumer filed

A developer met with a City planner to ascertain what zoning and land use restrictions existed on a parcel of land for sale. The City planner failed to inform the developer of certain stipulations on the parcel. Relying on the City planner’s representations, the developer purchased the parcel. Thereafter, the City informed the developer of

An employee signed a “Mutual Agreement for Dispute Resolution” that provided for mutually binding arbitration governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). When the employment relationship soured and after the woman resigned, the woman sued the company in various New York courts. A year later, she filed a similar suit in Maricopa County Superior Court.

A driver sued Maricopa County for injuries she suffered when a Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputy rear-ended her car on the freeway. The driver alleged the County was vicariously liable for the deputy’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the County lacked the requisite level of control over

The city suspended a employee for a violation of the police department’s social media policy. The employee appealed her suspension to the Phoenix Civil Service Board, arguing that the policy is unconstitutional and that she reasonably believed she was acting within her First Amendment rights. The board upheld the suspension and declined to consider whether