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.
In Duenas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed the enforceability of arbitration agreements in litigation involving wrongful death claims and claims brought under the Adult Protective Services Act (“APSA”).
On a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court recently held that a default judgment entered pursuant to a Damron agreement does not preclude litigation of whether coverage exists under the policy. Quihuis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, CV-14-0093-CQ, Oct. 1, 2014.
In August, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that in order to frisk an individual, “officers must reasonably suspect both that criminal activity is afoot and that the suspect is armed and dangerous.”
It is amazing how many of our personal injury clients make this statement during their initial consultation with our office after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. Then, after further investigation, it turns out that, in reality, “fully” means “minimally.”