The JSH Reporter JSH Reporter - Fall 2017 | Page 6

APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS
06
January 3, 2017 May 11, 2017
Coulter v. Thornton, LLP American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK
Auto, Inc.
(Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1)
Consistent with the discovery rule, determining the
accrual date for accountant malpractice claims is a
fact-based inquiry that turns on when a party knew or
reasonably should have known of facts establishing a
basis for the claim.
(Arizona Supreme Court)
A.R.S. § 12-341.01 applies for purposes of determining
the successful party in a breach claim arising under a
contract that does not itself define “prevailing party,” but
does incorporate Arizona law to determine the parties’
rights and remedies.
March 30, 2017
Acri v. Arizona May 30, 2017
(Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1) County of Los Angeles v. Mendez
The State did not owe a duty to residents of Yarnell
and surrounding areas in negligence case arising from
damage caused by the Yarnell Hill Fire. (U. S. Supreme Court)
April 20, 2017
Wagner v. Arizona
If a seizure is reasonable, courts cannot create liability
by looking back in time to assess whether a different
Fourth Amendment violation might have been tied to the
eventual use of force.
June 20, 2017
(Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1)
Employee of private contractor working in a state-owned
prison was a statutory employee of the State and could
not pursue a tort action against the State for her work-
related injuries.
Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson
(Arizona Supreme Court)
APSA claim requires proof that: (1) a vulnerable adult, (2)
has suffered an injury, (3) caused by abuse, (4) from a
caregiver.
April 25, 2017
Dobson Bay Club v. La Sonrisa De Siena,
LLC
(Arizona Supreme Court)
$1.4 million late fee assessed on a final loan balloon
payment constitutes an unenforceable penalty because
liquidated damages contract provisions are only
enforceable if the pre-determined amount for damages
seeks to compensate the non-breaching party rather
than penalize the breaching party.
July 13, 2017
Soto v. Sacco
(Arizona Supreme Court)
Rule 59(i)’s “specificity” requirement, which applies
to orders granting new trials, is equally applicable to
orders granting remittiturs or additurs.
Handled by JSH Appellate Counsel
ABOUT THE AUTHOR JONATHAN BARNES
Jon concentrates his practice