Unilateral Contract Case Study

A local news program reported recently a woman in the Phoenix metro area is offering $1,000 to anyone who can prove the claims in Proposition 104.

Sounds like a fun way to possibly make a grand.  But is this a legally enforceable contract? Would a court force the payment if the terms are met?  That is what I want to know.

— Video courtesy of Fox10 Phoenix.

Continue reading Unilateral Contract Case Study

Pleading Ignorance of Arizona’s Case Law

I wish it was as simple as this: “Your Honor, I plead ignorance of the law because it is impractical and quite nearly impossible to access a significant amount of Arizona’s case law on the matter.”  Nearly 30 years of Arizona case law is not freely and practically accessible, even though it should be.

Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Supreme Court — Photo taken by AzCommonLaw

“But Arizona Common Law, all of Arizona case law is available at libraries throughout the the state,” the Devil’s Advocate would hypothetically respond.  “All an individual needs to do is go to their local library to research case law.”

But Devil’s Advocate, it is not that simple…

Continue reading Pleading Ignorance of Arizona’s Case Law

Federal Wiretaps, District of Arizona 2014

The Federal Wiretap Report made by the federal judiciary, provides an insight into how wiretaps are used in Arizona and how the judicial district Arizona compares to other judicial districts in the United States.

Just looking at the map below, Arizona is colored in the darkest shade of orange.  Without even looking at any numbers the map indicates the district of Arizona is a district with the most reported wiretaps in the entire country.

A wiretap is where communications are monitored. Law enforcement is required to have a valid warrant so as to not unreasonably infringe upon privacy rights.

Let’s dig into the numbers.

Federal Wiretap Report 2014
Federal Wiretap Report 2014 – Provided by Uscourts.gov

Continue reading Federal Wiretaps, District of Arizona 2014

Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman

In a religious freedom decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state of Washington’s rules requiring the timely delivery of prescription medication over two pharmacists religious objections.  The pharmacists objected to delivering emergency contraceptives on the grounds of religious freedom.

The issue presented is whether a pharmacist must timely delivery emergency contraceptives when the state’s rules for pharmacies are neutral and generally applicable.  The federal appellate court upheld the state’s pharmacy rules because “the rules are neutral and generally applicable and that the rules rationally further the State’s
interest in patient safety.”1 Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, No. 12-35221 (9th Cir. July 23, 2015) (slip op. at 9).

Continue reading Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman

References   [ + ]

1. Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, No. 12-35221 (9th Cir. July 23, 2015) (slip op. at 9).

Arizona Legal News

Fourth Avenue Jail Phoenix
Fourth Avenue Jail Phoenix – Photo taken by AzCommonLaw
Legal News From Around Arizona
  • Scheduling for the contempt hearings regarding Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is moving forward with U.S. District Judge Murray Snow telling both parties to clear dates from late September to early November.  [CBS5AZ]
  • Glendale City Council and the Arizona Coyotes came to an agreement to revise the lease.  [ABC15]
  • Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws are being challenged on constitutional grounds by the state branch of the ACLU (see complaint below).  Civil asset forfeiture laws allow prosecutors and police to seize private property without a court order.
  • U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa denied a request for a preliminary injunction blocking the planned South Mountain Freeway. Two different groups challenged the proposed freeway for different reasons (See both complaints below).  Protecting Arizona’s Resources and Children argued in part that the freeway would cause irreparable environmental harm.  The Gila River Indian Community argues the freeway would impact it’s sacred lands.  [AzRepublic]

Continue reading Arizona Legal News

Creative Commons License

Arizona Common Law is now using a creative commons license for all the material on this website, created by me.1  The creative commons license does not extend to items which I do not create or write, such as the issue indices or write any of the case law. Those items are in the public domain.   In other words, this website is shifting from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved,” allowing more individuals more freedoms and flexibility to reproduce or modify this work.

“Creative Commons (CC) is a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools.”2 About, Creative Commons, available at: https://creativecommons.org/about/ (last accessed, July 21, 2015.

cc.logo.large Continue reading Creative Commons License

References   [ + ]

1.   The creative commons license does not extend to items which I do not create or write, such as the issue indices or write any of the case law. Those items are in the public domain.
2. About, Creative Commons, available at: https://creativecommons.org/about/ (last accessed, July 21, 2015.

Finished Adding Arizona Case Law Reporters in Public Domain

All of the Arizona case law reporters that are in the public domain are now added to the website.  The case law spans from 1866-1921.  This is an important resource for individuals research Arizona case law because these cases are not freely available in a searchable plain-text format elsewhere.

Arizona Reports - Public Domain
Public Domain Arizona Reports – Photo taken by AzCommonLaw

To find the case law from anywhere on the Arizona Common Law website click on the ‘Case Law’ tab in the horizontal menu at the top of the page (the horizontal menu will appear at the top of every page).

The case law section of the site offers:

  • Issue indices are available in plain text and .pdf (at the end of the .pdf copy of the reporter itself).
  • Plain text of cases are being added on a case-by-case basis.  To request the plain text of a case to be added, please contact me via email at joe@azcommonlaw.com or use the contact page.
  • Searchable Table of Contents are available to aid in the search for case law (Table of Contents are still being added for later volumes).  Users may query by party, date, or citation.

Coming soon will be free video tutorials on how to effectively search through this early Arizona case law.  If the format or layout does not seem quite clear yet, please wait for the instructional videos.

City of Glendale and Arizona Coyotes Lease Dispute

The lease dispute with the City of Glendale is putting a crimp in the Arizona Coyotes courting of free agents this off-season.

“You’re honest with them,” Arizona Coyotes General Manager Don Maloney told the Arizona Republic.1 Sarah McLellan, “Arizona Coyotes’ offseason priority: Improving defense,” Arizona Republic, July 02, 2015, available at: http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2015/07/02/arizona-coyotes-mike-smith-don-maloney-brad-richardson-nhl-notes/29644819/ (last accessed July 08, 2015). “You basically say, ‘I have no idea what’s going on, but it’s a great place to play and we have great fans and a great stadium.’ Things seem to have a way of working themselves out, so we try to downplay it as much as we can.”

The lease dispute is putting the team’s future on ice (pun intended).  At issue is whether the City of Glendale will be able to get out of the $225 million lease agreement with the Arizona Coyotes.

City of Glendale -- Taken by AzCommonLaw
City of Glendale — Taken by AzCommonLaw

Continue reading City of Glendale and Arizona Coyotes Lease Dispute

References   [ + ]

1. Sarah McLellan, “Arizona Coyotes’ offseason priority: Improving defense,” Arizona Republic, July 02, 2015, available at: http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2015/07/02/arizona-coyotes-mike-smith-don-maloney-brad-richardson-nhl-notes/29644819/ (last accessed July 08, 2015).

Hacking Team Alleged to Market to MCAO

It appears leaked documents from the controversial Italian surveillance firm, Hacking Team, indicate the firm tried to market their wares to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

The newspaper, The Intercept, reports the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) is among the U.S. law enforcement agencies solicited by the Hacking Team.  Jerry Cobb, an MCAO spokesman said the prosecutor’s office is neither use Hacking Team products, nor are they considering the use of any Hacking Team products.1 Cora Currier and Morgan Marquis-Boire, “Leaked Documents Show FBI, DEA and U.S. Army Buying Italian Spyware,” The Intercept, July, 06, 2015, available at: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/hacking-team-spyware-fbi/ (last accessed July 07, 2015).

Continue reading Hacking Team Alleged to Market to MCAO

References   [ + ]

1.  Cora Currier and Morgan Marquis-Boire, “Leaked Documents Show FBI, DEA and U.S. Army Buying Italian Spyware,” The Intercept, July, 06, 2015, available at: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/hacking-team-spyware-fbi/ (last accessed July 07, 2015).

Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

In a civil rights decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld disparate impact claims are recognized under the Fair Housing Act.

The issue the court considered is whether, under a proper interpretation of the FHA, housing decisions with a disparate impact are prohibited.1 Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____(2015) (slip op. at 7). In a 5-4 decision, the Court held disparate impact claims are permitted under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

Low Income Tax Credits

The federal government provides tax credits for low income housing.2 26 U. S. C. §42.  Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____(2015) (slip op. at 2).   Each state must develop criteria in order to disburse the credits, but the some of the criteria must include requirements set by Congress. “Federal law thus favors the distribution of these tax credits for the development of housing units in low-income areas.”3 Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____(2015) (slip op. at 2).

Continue reading Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

References   [ + ]

1. Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____(2015) (slip op. at 7).
2. 26 U. S. C. §42.  Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____(2015) (slip op. at 2).
3. Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____(2015) (slip op. at 2).