On April 2, 2018, in Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S., the United States Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of a woman who had been shot and wounded by a law enforcement officer in Tucson, Arizona. In doing so, the Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity…
Public employees are often faced with the issue of whether their speech is protected from adverse employment action. Speech is guaranteed freedom, and thus protection, under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution. In certain cases, public speech is not necessarily protected.
Lately, it seems like the news is filled with a continuing barrage of sexual harassment accusations, referred to as the “Weinstein Effect.” The names of high-profile figures in entertainment and politics are constantly pinging our social media notifications and news feeds. The accusations range from inappropriate comments to criminal sexual assault.
Sadly, a large number of motorists in the State of Arizona drive on the streets and highways with little or minimal insurance coverage. Arizona law only requires a person to carry auto insurance that has liability limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident. In a situation involving injury, that is not much.
The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) was enacted in 2004 which allows two classes of persons to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction in the United States or United States Territories, regardless of any state or local laws that contain exceptions. The Unites States Federal law of LEOSA is broken into two classes of qualified persons.
In Spirlong v. Browne, the Arizona Court of Appeals examined whether a defendant homeowner and landlord qualified as the statutory owner of a renter’s dog as defined under Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) section 11-1001(10). In its holding, the court declined to extend liability to an individual who did not exercise care, custody, or control over an animal.