Evo Anton DeConcini

In Cheshire v. Thurston, the plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenants in forcible detainer to regain possession of commercial premises after their five-year lease expired on July 14, 1948. The parties had discussed a possible renewal but never executed a written agreement; the defendants remained in possession, attempted to tender rent for a new five-year term, and refused to vacate after receiving notice to leave. The trial court found the defendants guilty of forcible detainer, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the landlord was the proper party plaintiff under the forcible detainer statutes and that the defendants' holdover did not create a month-to-month tenancy because their tender was conditioned on a new long-term lease that the landlord had rejected. The court reasoned that any implied covenant to deliver actual possession and the statutory rule on holdovers both supported the landlord's right to immediate possession under the facts found below.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the Double Seven Corporation, charged by direct information with two misdemeanors under Arizona's horsemeat act (Chapter 50, Article 13, A.C.A. 1939) for allegedly selling and possessing horse meat and horse meat products that were not properly stamped, branded, or labeled as required by sections 50-1306 and 50-1307. The Superior Court certified two questions to the Arizona Supreme Court: whether the information sufficiently charged offenses under the statute, and whether the horsemeat act was unconstitutional in whole or in part, including on equal protection grounds due to requirements for separate slaughtering facilities. The court held that the information was legally sufficient despite any caption discrepancies, as the facts alleged violations of the labeling provisions, and that the act was constitutional as a valid exercise of the state's police power to prevent fraud, deception, and public confusion regarding meat products. The decision emphasized that constitutional challenges to legislation must be resolved in favor of validity where a reasonable basis exists, and the classification for separate handling of horsemeat was not arbitrary. The matter was remanded for trial on the merits.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

Maricopa County sued Judie Douglas and her husband to recover $1,825 in old-age assistance paid to her mother under a state law requiring repayment from adult children with annual income over $3,000 who are able to support the recipient. The trial court ruled for the defendants, finding the relatives' responsibility statute unconstitutionally vague. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the statute validly imposes liability on qualifying adult children and creates a remedy for counties to recover aid, but community property rules prevent collection from the marital community estate because the obligation is a separate debt of the daughter. The court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment against Judie Douglas enforceable only against her separate property.

family lawpropertyhealthcaretaxes