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).

Obergefell v. Hodges — Equal Protection Same-Sex Marriage

In a historic civil rights ruling, the United States Supreme Court held both the due process and  equal protection clauses apply to same-sex marriages, and the United States Constitution requires states to treat same-sex marriages the same as traditional marriages between a man and a woman.

The Court in a 5-4 ruling held the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires states to: 1. license marriages of same-sex couples; and 2. recognize marriages of same sex couples obtained in other states.

The Court combined several cases with shared issues together in this one decision.  Joined are cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Maricopa County Clerk of Court - Photo Taken by AzCommonLaw
Maricopa County Clerk of Court – Photo Taken by AzCommonLaw

Continue reading Obergefell v. Hodges — Equal Protection Same-Sex Marriage

ICANN Possibly Removing Privacy Protection

ICANN is considering a rule where domain holders with sites associated to “commercial activity” will no longer be able to use privacy protection techniques.

The protection of private information for websites with commercial activity is just one of many issues Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) looking at.  However, it seems to be the issue that is getting the most traction, and the issue that would affect this website and countless other websites across the internet.

“Your privacy provider could be forced to publish your contact data in WHOIS or give it out to anyone who complains about your website, without due process. Why should a small business owner have to publicize her home address just to have a website?”1 Email newsletter from NameCheap.com (June 22, 2015) (on file with AzCommonLaw). According to NameCheap.com, a ICANN accredited domain registrar (a fancy way of saying they are an official domain registrar).

Arizona Common Law Seal Continue reading ICANN Possibly Removing Privacy Protection

References   [ + ]

1. Email newsletter from NameCheap.com (June 22, 2015) (on file with AzCommonLaw).

License Plate Design, Government Speech

Governments can speak too, and the United States Supreme Court held last week that a specialty license plate design falls under the category of government speech and governments can speak for themselves.

Usually, free speech is not thought about in terms of the government.  But when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.  The government is free to promote an idea, or take a position.1 Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____ (2015) (slip op. at 5).

Texas Specialty License Plates
Texas Specialty License Plates

Continue reading License Plate Design, Government Speech

References   [ + ]

1. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. ____, ____ (2015) (slip op. at 5).

Reed v. Town of Gilbert Decision

Gilbert Arizona’s quirky sign laws which creates different categories of signs, with different privileges, is unconstitutional ruled the United States Supreme Court today.

A unanimous Supreme Court found the Town of Gilbert’s (Town) sign laws unconstitutionally restricting Good News Community Church’s (Church) right to free speech.  The Court thoroughly explained what constitutes content based restrictions on speech, and debunked each of the court of appeals arguments in reversing its decision.

Continue reading Reed v. Town of Gilbert Decision

Libel and .Sucks Domains

There is a new general top level domain name on the internet — .sucks.  This is a brand new domain that will be available for the general public to purchase and use starting in mid-June 2015.

Individuals will then be free to kvetch about anything that sucks or pre-emtpively register the domain, so others will not have access to yourname.sucks or yourcompany.sucks.

I hope that http://papercuts.sucks is still available to the general public, when the domain becomes available, because paper cuts  are excruciatingly painful.  And I, for one, would love to hate on the dreaded paper cut.

But it is quite possible many new .sucks websites will not be so benign as to target paper cuts.  Potential websites could target people, companies, ideologies, etc.  Possibly creating issues of defamation / libel and free speech issues.

 

.sucks domain Continue reading Libel and .Sucks Domains

Thalheimer v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 11 Ariz. 430

 What powers the Territory had when functioning since its creation until statehood, is important to understand when considering the common law of Arizona.

The Arizona Territorial Supreme Court was presented with the issue whether Maricopa County could by popular referendum prohibit the sale of alcohol.

Plaintiff argued that the Territorial Legislature had the power to restrict alcohol, but the county did not have that authority.  “[T]here is a distinction between a state legislature, vested with the power by the people of the state, and the legislature of a territory, vested with the power by Congress.”1 Thalheimer v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 11 Ariz. 430, 433 (1908). The argument continues territories act as an agent of Congress, and are not available to pass that power along, even to local matters.

Continue reading Thalheimer v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 11 Ariz. 430

References   [ + ]

1. Thalheimer v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 11 Ariz. 430, 433 (1908).