James D. Hathaway

This case involved a lawsuit by Larry and Gina Linch against their medical providers (Thomas-Davis Medical Centers and psychologists Sutherland and MacGregor) and the providers' law firm (Snell & Wilmer) for damages arising from the release of the Linches' confidential psychological records. The records were seized pursuant to a search warrant issued in a criminal investigation of Larry Linch for domestic violence; the providers initially resisted a grand jury subpoena but complied with the warrant after it was issued, and the court later ordered the records released. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a search warrant must be obeyed even if it seeks privileged material, that the psychologist-client privilege (treated like the attorney-client privilege) does not prevent such a seizure, and that the providers were protected by a statutory presumption of good faith in disclosure that the plaintiffs did not rebut. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of leave to amend the complaint to add RICO claims.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcaretorts & liability

This case was a wrongful death lawsuit brought against First Interstate Bank after a customer was murdered by Patrick Slay during an ATM robbery at the bank. The bank moved to designate Slay as a non-party at fault under Arizona's comparative fault statute, A.R.S. § 12-2506, but the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the designation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute permits allocation of fault between a negligent defendant and a non-party who commits an intentional criminal act. The court reasoned that the statute's broad language requiring consideration of the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury is unambiguous and encompasses intentional conduct, consistent with the legislative goal of several liability based on each party's percentage of fault.

criminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent for armed robbery and committed by the juvenile court to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections for a minimum of two years in secure care under a 1994 amendment to A.R.S. § 8-241 allowing courts to set minimum periods. The minor appealed, claiming the amendment's application violated the prohibition on ex post facto laws because it allegedly permitted greater punishment than existed at the time of the offense, and that denial of credit for pre-adjudication time served in detention violated equal protection. The court affirmed the disposition, holding that the statute applied to commitments on or after September 30, 1995, did not increase the maximum possible commitment period (which remains until age 18), and that juveniles committed to juvenile facilities are not similarly situated to adults for purposes of credit on indeterminate periods. The court rejected both constitutional claims and upheld the order.

criminal lawfamily law

The case concerned a mechanic's lien filed by Sunstate Equipment Corp. against the Guarriellos' residence after the company rented equipment to their contractor, who failed to pay. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Guarriellos under A.R.S. § 33-420(A), awarding $5,000 in damages plus attorney fees, and denied their request for additional damages under subsection (C). The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Sunstate could not validly record the lien because there was no written contract with the owner-occupants as required by § 33-1002(B) and that Sunstate bore the burden of verifying the owners' status before filing. It reversed on the cross-appeal, ruling that the statute allowed cumulative penalties under both subsections when Sunstate refused to release the lien after written demand.

property

In State v. Muniz-Caudillo, the defendant was tried and convicted in his absence by a jury on charges of unlawful offer to sell a narcotic drug, unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, possession of a deadly weapon during a felony drug offense, and conspiracy to commit a class two felony. After his arrest nearly a year later, he received concurrent prison sentences and appealed on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by finding he had voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the defendant had been personally warned that proceedings could continue in his absence, failed to appear at the pretrial conference where the trial date was set, and did not contact counsel or pretrial services to learn the status of his case. Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1, these facts supported an inference of voluntary absence that the defendant did not rebut.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. petitioning for access to foster parent licensing records held by the Arizona Department of Economic Security. The trial court allowed PNI to view the files but required redaction of foster parents' personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. On appeal, the court affirmed the redaction order, concluding that foster parents are "applicants" under A.R.S. § 41-1959(A), rendering their personal information confidential. The court reasoned that the statute's confidentiality rules apply to licensing applicants and take precedence over general public records disclosure statutes, even after legislative amendments addressing child protective services.

free speechfamily lawprocedure