Henry D. Ross

The case involved a plaintiff who sued his dentist for malpractice after the dentist allegedly left broken pieces of a drill and hypodermic needle embedded in the plaintiff's jawbone during a 1935 procedure, causing ongoing illness; the plaintiff claimed the dentist fraudulently concealed the error through false assurances until its discovery by another dentist in 1941. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Arizona law. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the confidential dentist-patient relationship and the dentist's fraudulent concealment of the negligence tolled the limitations period until the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the facts, allowing the claim to proceed. The court reasoned that such concealment in a position of trust prevents the statute from running until discovery, consistent with precedents on fraudulently hidden causes of action.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a dispute over whether the Iron King Mining Company owed workers' compensation premiums to the Industrial Commission for two individuals who leased mining rights from the company. The Industrial Commission argued that the lessees were employees under the company's supervision, requiring the company to insure them under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court decided in favor of the mining company, holding that no premiums were due because the lessees operated as independent contractors without supervision or control by the company. The reasoning centered on the statutory requirement that a lessor must retain supervision or control for lessees to be considered employees, which was not present here based on the lease terms.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this personal injury case, plaintiff Judge Manor sued defendants Joe H. Barry, Payne Godfrey, Chris C. Black, and Annabelle Black for damages after being struck by a car while walking on a public highway, alleging joint negligence by the drivers. A jury returned a verdict against all defendants, but after the trial court granted the Blacks a new trial and later entered summary judgment in their favor, the plaintiff appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order for a new trial vacated the prior proceedings and left contested issues of fact regarding the Blacks' negligence that could not be resolved by summary judgment under the applicable statutes without supporting depositions or affidavits. The court reasoned that the pleadings alone raised material factual disputes, and the plaintiff should have the opportunity to amend pleadings or present new evidence at a retrial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Harold Rupp, who was serving a 7-to-10-year sentence for robbery and claimed he had completed his maximum term after receiving credits for straight time, double time, and statutory good conduct time. The superintendent opposed the petition, and the trial court quashed the writ after finding that Rupp had not served the required period. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a parolee receives only straight-time credit during parole and that no additional good-conduct deductions apply without a formal declaration of forfeiture by the board of pardons and paroles. Applying these rules to the stipulated facts, the court determined that Rupp still owed five months and twenty-one days on his sentence as of September 1944 and therefore affirmed the denial of relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim where plaintiff Epperson sought damages after defendants failed to deliver 48 head of cattle under a July 1941 agreement for the sale of 178 Hereford range cattle at $55 per head, with a $712 down payment to be applied to the purchase price. The contract specified that if the sellers failed to perform, the buyer could either receive a full return of the $712 forfeit payment or gather the remaining cattle himself at the contract price minus gathering costs. The trial court had ruled that Epperson was limited to recovering only $176 of the down payment as an election of remedies based on his complaint. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the contract entitled Epperson to the full $712 upon the sellers' breach and that he could not recover additional general damages beyond the stipulated remedies.

business & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute over title to a residential property in Pima County, Arizona, between the Mollings, who had made an assignment of their assets for the benefit of creditors in 1938, and their assignee Seaney. The Mollings sought to quiet title by declaring the property their homestead, which they had not done at the time of the assignment, while Seaney argued that the assignment conveyed the property to him since no homestead declaration existed then. The trial court ruled for the Mollings, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. The core reasoning was that state law expressly excludes property exempt from execution from assignments for creditors, the deed of assignment reserved such exemptions, the homestead statute protects the property upon recording of the claim, and the parties' conduct showed they treated the property as exempt throughout the proceedings.

property

This case concerned the validity of a lease under which the City of Mesa transferred operation of a publicly owned hospital property and equipment to the South Side District Hospital, a nonprofit corporation, for nominal consideration. A taxpayer sued for a declaratory judgment that the arrangement was unlawful because it lacked competitive bidding, constituted an unconstitutional grant or loan of public credit, and improperly excluded certain physicians and patients. The trial court ruled the lease invalid under the state constitution and ordered the city to resume direct operation of the facility. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lease was authorized and validated by a 1941 statute empowering municipalities to lease hospitals to nonprofits and that the arrangement did not violate the constitutional prohibition on lending public credit.

propertybusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved an attorney suing the estate of Jack C. Davey to recover fees for legal services rendered to Davey and the Wallapai Brick Company over several years. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff based on his own testimony, which the majority apparently affirmed. In dissent, the court reasoned that the plaintiff was incompetent to testify under Arizona's dead man's statute (A.C.A. § 23-105) absent being called by the executrix or the court, that allowing such testimony was an abuse of discretion, that numerous items were barred by the statute of limitations, and that there was a fatal variance between the open-account claim presented to the estate and the special agreements alleged in the complaint. The dissent concluded the judgment should be reversed.

procedure

This case involved an appeal from an Industrial Commission award granting compensation to a worker disabled by silicosis complicated by tuberculosis under Arizona's Occupational Disease Disability Law. The worker's last employer, Magma Copper Company, challenged the award on the ground that the employee had not been exposed to silicon dioxide dust for the required total period of at least five years during the ten years immediately preceding disablement. The undisputed facts showed that the employee's actual mining work for two companies in Arizona during that period amounted to an aggregate span of only four years, eight months, and seven days, including all absences. The court held that the statutory exposure requirement was not satisfied because it measures actual time on the job rather than calendar time or periods away from work, and therefore set aside the award.

labor & employment

The case involved the conviction of Art Byrd for statutory rape of a 16-year-old girl in Gila County, Arizona, based on evidence that he took her on a nighttime drive and had sexual intercourse with her. Byrd appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of certain testimony. The court found the evidence sufficient for the jury to decide, noting the girl's age made consent irrelevant and that her story was not inherently improbable given the circumstances. However, the conviction was reversed because the prosecution improperly introduced rebuttal testimony from another woman suggesting Byrd had attacked her, which constituted inadmissible evidence of a separate offense; the trial court's instruction to disregard part of the testimony did not cure the prejudice. The case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the appeal of Ransom, who was convicted in Maricopa County superior court of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Charlie Payne in a Phoenix saloon. Ransom raised five errors on appeal, primarily the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, the admission of certain testimony, his absence during portions of the proceedings, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in allowing the victim's son to sit near the jury. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence showed no basis for a manslaughter instruction because the attack involved multiple deliberate wounds with no signs of provocation or self-defense, and that the other claims either lacked merit, were not preserved below, or involved non-prejudicial matters. The court emphasized that jury instructions are limited to issues supported by the evidence and that procedural objections must be raised timely in the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a proceeding by the State of Arizona to foreclose a taxpayer's right to redeem land sold for delinquent taxes from 1929 through 1936 after certificates of purchase were issued to the state. The Miami Trust Company, owner of the subdivided property in Miami, challenged the foreclosure on grounds including the assessment method and the timing of the tax sale. The court held that the sale was invalid because the county treasurer struck off the property to the state on the first day of the advertised sale without re-offering it on subsequent days as required by statute when no bids were received. It reasoned that this violated Arizona Code Annotated 1939 section 73-806, depriving the treasurer of jurisdiction and rendering the sale void, consistent with similar Colorado precedents. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, while upholding the validity of a five-year limit on tax collection actions.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District seeking court validation of $7,332,000 in refunding bonds to exchange for existing higher-interest bonds from its first bond issue, without a new elector vote, while preserving the original lien priorities on district property. The lower court ruled the bonds valid, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the district had statutory authority to issue refunding bonds and maintain liens but lacked power to do so without elector approval, as the original bonds had been voter-authorized and refunding altered their terms.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns the suspension of Ethel Griffin, the elected county treasurer and tax collector of Pinal County, by the board of supervisors after her accounts were found short due to three uncollected checks for tax payments. Griffin sought review through a writ of certiorari in superior court, which upheld the suspension and quashed the writ; she appealed that decision. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that certiorari review is limited to whether the board regularly pursued its statutory authority and had jurisdiction, without reweighing the evidence of the shortage. The court reasoned that the governing statute expressly authorizes immediate suspension for defalcation or neglect of duty pending final adjudication, separate from removal which requires notice and hearing, and that such temporary suspension is a standard and valid practice.

procedurecriminal lawtaxes

The case involved a dispute over the calculation of workers' compensation benefits for the dependents of Manuel H. Gutierrez, who died in a workplace accident while employed by Kennecott Copper Corporation. The Industrial Commission had based the award on the employee's total earnings in the thirty days before his death, including extra pay he received for substituting for an ill coworker in addition to his regular and overtime wages. The court set aside the award, holding that under the applicable statute, the "average monthly wage" should reflect only the employee's normal and overtime compensation for his own position, not wages earned by covering for another employee. The reasoning centered on the statutory definition requiring an average based on the employee's regular earnings over the relevant period, excluding irregular substitution pay.

labor & employment

The case involved the dependents of Gregorio Galaviz seeking review of an Industrial Commission award for compensation after his death while working for Kennecott Copper Corporation. The court addressed whether compensation should be calculated based on employment for less than thirty days (due to a recent vacation) or on the basis of continuous employment exceeding thirty days. The court set aside the award, holding that Galaviz's employment was continuous despite the vacation, as he resumed work without interruption in status, and the statute's provision for average monthly wage should reflect his prior earning capacity over a longer period.

labor & employment

This case involved a divorce action brought by husband Sam R. Smith against wife Beth Smith in Arizona superior court, with each spouse alleging cruelty by the other and seeking custody of their two young children. The husband claimed the wife's affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses and her related activities, including proselytizing and traveling with the children, constituted cruel treatment that disrupted the marriage and endangered the family. The wife countered with allegations of the husband's abuse and unfitness. The trial court granted the divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty and awarded him custody. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while individuals may hold their own religious beliefs, conduct that destroys family life can qualify as statutory cruel treatment, and the evidence supported the trial court's findings on both the divorce and child custody.

family lawreligious liberty

This case involves an action to foreclose a lien on patented mining claims based on a prior judgment that included an acceleration clause making the lien due if taxes were not paid before becoming delinquent. The defendant failed to pay the second half of 1941 taxes on time, leading to delinquency, but paid them shortly after being served with the lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding foreclosure unconscionable, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the acceleration provision in the lien judgment is valid and enforceable, similar to mortgage terms, entitling the plaintiff to foreclose upon default.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned the authority to sell and convey Arizona state lands acquired through foreclosure of mortgages securing loans from the permanent school fund. Plaintiff Davenport purchased such a parcel at a public sale conducted by the governor, secretary of state, and state treasurer, who then executed the deed; the state later challenged the validity of that conveyance, arguing that only the state land commissioner could act. The court affirmed judgment for Davenport, holding that 1929 legislation (chapter 94) specifically vested administration and sale of these foreclosed lands in the governor, secretary, and treasurer as the state loan board, and that this later, specific statute controlled over the general powers given the land department in 1915. The decision also noted the long-standing administrative practice and the need to protect good-faith purchasers relying on that practice.

propertyprocedure

In State of Arizona v. Farmer, the defendants were charged under Arizona Code section 43-407 with committing a lewd or lascivious act upon another person in an unnatural manner with the intent to gratify sexual desires. The trial court certified the question of the statute's constitutionality to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court ruled that the statute is valid and the information is sufficient, reasoning that its language consists of ordinary words defining a crime and that it differs materially from a California statute on the same subject that had been held unconstitutional.

criminal law