William C. Frey

This case involved a wrongful death claim by plaintiff Pamela Diane Bach arising from the October 1975 crash of a U.S. military aircraft in Arizona during an ejection sequence that killed her husband, First Lieutenant Robert M. Bach; the English firm Martin-Baker, which designed and manufactured the ejector seat installed in the plane, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Arizona Rule 4(e)(2) permits jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that caused an event to occur in the state, and the facts showed Martin-Baker had placed its specially designed military seats into the stream of commerce with knowledge they would be used by U.S. forces, including in Arizona, thereby satisfying both the state long-arm statute and constitutional due process. The court rejected arguments that the non-resident status of the parties or the seat's sale in England precluded jurisdiction, noting the presence of hundreds of Martin-Baker seats in Arizona and the foreseeability of litigation there.

proceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Catalanotto, defendant Joseph Rae moved to disqualify the Tucson Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona and quash the Second Superseding Indictment against him, based on a conflict arising from his former attorney Jon R. Cooper joining that office after representing Rae in related matters. The court found that Cooper had received confidential information from Rae about individuals and an automobile later tied to the indictment counts, and that a pending civil lawsuit by Cooper against Rae for unpaid fees created an appearance of impropriety or retaliation. Applying Arizona ethical rules, the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, and precedents like State v. Latigue, the court held that knowledge could be imputed to the Tucson office, violating standards against even the appearance of professional impropriety under Canon 9. It therefore quashed the indictment as to Rae, disqualified the Tucson office from further prosecution of him, severed Rae from the case, and allowed for possible handling by the Phoenix office or a special prosecutor.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves retail business partners suing First National Bank of Chicago and others under federal antitrust laws after the bank, acting as trustee, refused to lease them space in an Arizona shopping center it owned. The bank moved to dismiss, arguing improper venue under a federal statute limiting suits against national banks to the district where the bank is established, here the Northern District of Illinois. Although a broader antitrust venue provision exists, the court found the bank-specific rule applies absent waiver. The court denied the motion, holding that the bank waived venue protections by qualifying to do business in Arizona and designating a statutory agent for service of process there, even without operating a branch. The decision rested on the principle that such actions demonstrate consent to suit in the state, consistent with precedents recognizing waiver in similar contexts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the criminal prosecution of a Border Patrol officer, William Dale Manypenny, for assault with a deadly weapon after he shot and injured a fleeing alien while on duty on the Organ Pipe National Monument or Papago Indian Reservation in Arizona; the case was removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. The court initially arrested judgment on jurisdictional and preemption grounds but, on reconsideration, denied that motion and instead granted a judgment of acquittal. The core reasoning was that Arizona retained criminal jurisdiction over the lands in question, as none of the constitutional or statutory exceptions to state authority applied, but federal officers have a complete defense to state charges when their actions are honestly and reasonably believed necessary to carry out their federal duties, and the evidence here could not support a guilty verdict under that standard.

criminal lawfederal powerimmigration

In Northcross v. Joslyn Fruit Co., Inc., an Arizona plaintiff doing business as Northcross Distributing Company sued a Colorado corporation for breach of contract and nonpayment of approximately $23,472.50 after the defendant placed five orders for perishable agricultural goods that were shipped F.O.B. from Nogales, Arizona. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), asserting lack of personal jurisdiction under Arizona's long-arm statute (Rule 4(e)(2)). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that the defendant was not "doing business" in Arizona, had no direct contacts there, and did not cause an event in the state sufficient to confer jurisdiction; the connection was also deemed too insubstantial to satisfy constitutional due process. The plaintiff failed to carry the burden of establishing a basis for jurisdiction despite the goods originating in Arizona.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a class action brought by Deputy Sheriff Gomez, a Mexican-American, against Pima County, its sheriff, and other officials, alleging violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 through discriminatory employment practices in the Sheriff's Department, including unjustified discipline, transfers, and denial of promotions affecting him and the class of Mexican-American/Spanish-surname applicants and employees. The defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including whether a county can be sued under § 1981, whether Mexican-Americans may bring claims under that statute, immunity, failure to state a claim, and exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court denied the motion to dismiss in full, holding that counties are proper defendants under § 1981, that Mexican-Americans may sue under the statute for discrimination based on race or color, and that exhaustion would be required only if administrative procedures could have prevented the alleged deprivations.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a widow suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the Air Force's negligent failure to diagnose her husband's cancer, which allegedly occurred both before and after his retirement from active duty in 1971. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. It reasoned that claims based on pre-retirement negligence were barred by the Feres doctrine, which prevents suits against the United States for injuries to servicemen on active duty, and that claims based on post-retirement negligence were not properly presented in the administrative claim, failing to exhaust required remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the U.S. Attorney General filing a pattern-or-practice suit against a public community college district alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing, ruling that the Attorney General no longer had authority to initiate such suits against government employers. The core reasoning was that the 1972 amendments to Title VII, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(c), transferred all pattern-and-practice enforcement authority from the Attorney General to the EEOC effective March 1974, while separate provisions preserved the Attorney General's role only for individual-charge suits against public employers.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of a Department of the Interior decision that invalidated plaintiffs' mining claims located on defendants' patented homestead land and grazing lease, finding them null and void due to lack of a valid mineral discovery. The plaintiffs sought to overturn the ruling by the Bureau of Land Management and Interior Board of Land Appeals, which had been initiated via a private contest by the surface owners. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, affirming the agency's decision after a prior similar action was dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party. The core reasoning was that the administrative findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record, including the absence of proof that minerals could be extracted and marketed at a profit under the prudent man and marketability tests, and that the agency applied the correct legal standards.

propertyfederal power

The case involved the United States charging Phelps Dodge Corporation with violating the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 by polluting navigable waters. The defendant moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the term “waters of the United States” was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause and that the EPA Administrator was required to issue an abatement order before criminal proceedings could begin. The court denied both motions, holding that the statutory definition of navigable waters was sufficiently clear to provide fair warning of prohibited conduct and that legislative history confirmed the enforcement procedures under the Act.

criminal lawenvironmentfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff who sued his former employer, Hughes Aircraft Co., alleging that his July 1974 discharge was due to his Mexican-American national origin and in retaliation for opposing practices that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He brought claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (the 1866 Civil Rights Act) and Title VII (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a)), seeking a preliminary injunction and other relief. The court dismissed the § 1981 claim because that statute applies only to racial discrimination and does not cover national-origin discrimination. It also dismissed the Title VII claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiff and the EEOC had failed to comply with mandatory procedural prerequisites, including deferral of the charge to the appropriate Arizona state agency for at least sixty days before the EEOC could issue a right-to-sue letter. The court concluded that these exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional and that the right-to-sue letter issued without them was invalid.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In Corne v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., two female employees sued their employer and a male supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that repeated verbal and physical sexual advances created intolerable working conditions that forced them to resign and amounted to sex-based discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. It held that the allegations failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) because the conduct at issue—unsolicited sexual advances by a supervisor—did not constitute the type of sex discrimination Congress intended to prohibit when it added “sex” to the statute’s protected categories. The court further ruled that the plaintiffs had not exhausted state remedies, as the EEOC failed to properly defer the charges to Arizona’s civil rights agency within the required time frames before issuing right-to-sue notices.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Morales v. Hamilton, plaintiff Ruben Silva Morales sued Border Patrol and Customs agents for damages, alleging that a June 1973 vehicle stop and search on U.S. highways near the border violated the Fourth Amendment by uncovering marijuana without probable cause or a warrant. The court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants after dismissing others who performed only ministerial duties. Its reasoning centered on the agents' good-faith reliance on then-existing Ninth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuit precedent that permitted routine immigration searches of vehicles for hidden aliens, even though the Supreme Court's later decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States rendered such searches unconstitutional and was applied retroactively to reverse the plaintiff's juvenile adjudication.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Ben Diaz, who was convicted by a U.S. Magistrate of appropriating Apache religious artifacts from the San Carlos Indian Reservation, in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 433, which prohibits taking objects of antiquity from government-controlled lands. Diaz consented to trial before the magistrate and was sentenced to a $500 fine; on appeal, the district court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that the artifacts qualified as objects of antiquity based on expert anthropological testimony regarding their cultural and religious significance to the Apache people, even if recently made, and that evidence supported their removal from the reservation. The court further held that the magistrate properly weighed the evidence, including disbelieving Diaz's account of acquiring the items from a hitchhiker, without shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

criminal lawpropertyfederal power

The case concerned plaintiffs Albert and Ellora Thomas seeking judicial review of a Department of Interior decision that invalidated their six lode mining claims for lack of valid discovery, following a private contest initiated by defendants Mr. and Mrs. DeVilbiss as surface owners and grazing lessees. Plaintiffs sued only the private defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act and mandamus jurisdiction, asking the court to rule that the agency lacked authority to entertain such contests and to remand the matter. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Secretary of Interior was an indispensable party who had not been joined, that the administrative ruling was res judicata, and that mandamus jurisdiction did not apply absent a federal officer or agency as defendant.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs' challenge to a decision by the Secretary of the Interior declaring plaintiff Sainberg's mining claim null and void after an answer to a government contest complaint was filed one day late. Plaintiffs sought to set aside the decision and have the contest complaint dismissed, arguing improper service on all interested parties and that the agency should have excused the late filing. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the agency correctly applied its mandatory regulation rejecting the untimely answer, that no authority existed to waive the deadline for excusable neglect, and that service was proper based on the powers of attorney disclosed to the Bureau of Land Management. The court further found substantial evidence supported the agency's findings and that the Administrative Procedure Act standard of review was satisfied.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved film producers BBS and Columbia challenging enforcement of Arizona Revised Statute Section 13-537, which prohibits the public display of explicit sexual material, after Phoenix officials threatened prosecution over a four-second scene of frontal nudity in the drive-in screening of 'The Last Picture Show,' which was visible from public roads. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, along with civil rights claims. The court found that the scene did not violate the statute because it depicted only human genitalia without the other explicit sexual acts listed, creating no actual constitutional controversy. As a result, the three-judge panel denied summary judgment on the constitutional claims, remanded the declaratory judgment and civil rights issues to a single district judge, and dissolved itself.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved Ness Investment Corporation challenging the U.S. Forest Service's revocation of a 1965 special use permit for a year-round resort at Canyon Lake in the Tonto National Forest, Arizona, and the subsequent rejection of an application by a successor entity for a new permit. The plaintiffs sought judicial review, including a de novo hearing, fact-finding, and the court setting permit conditions and terms. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the issuance and transfer of such permits under 16 U.S.C. § 497 and related regulations are committed to agency discretion by law and thus excepted from review under 5 U.S.C. § 701. The core reasoning was that federal courts have no authority or expertise to oversee or supplant the Forest Service's discretionary determinations regarding qualifications, conditions, and permit terms.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

The case involves Multiple Use, Inc.'s challenge to an administrative decision by the Secretary of the Interior declaring its Robe Roye-Martin-Missing Link placer mining claim in the Prescott National Forest null and void. The claim, originally consisting of multiple smaller claims later amended to 103.18 acres, sought a patent based on alleged deposits of gold, sand, gravel, and building stone. The court reviewed the record under the Administrative Procedure Act to assess whether the Secretary's ruling was supported by substantial evidence. Applying the prudent man test and marketability test for discovery of valuable minerals under federal mining laws, the court found no valid discovery existed on any portion of the claim and upheld the nullification. It also noted that the allowable acreage depended on ownership at the time of any discovery, rendering the size dispute irrelevant given the lack of a qualifying deposit.

environmentbusiness & regulatorypropertyprocedure