O'CONNOR & CAMPBELL
7955 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona, USA 85284
602.241.7000

Cases of Interest

Kisela v. Hughes

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

More...

Gilliland v Lill

Arizona Department of Child Safety case managers are entitled to qualified immunity and cannot be sued for money damages, unless the conduct alleged violates clearly established law, and a reasonable case manager would have understood his conduct violated the right.

More...

Allen v. Prescott Valley

An Arizona Municipality’s nominal use fees will not preclude it from recreational immunity under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-1551, but the municipality’s maintenance failures regarding the recreational area could render it subject to liability for gross negligence.

More...

Armiros v. Rohr

Arizona residents can form legally binding agreements through online auction sites, and when breached, those agreements can result in significant damages awarded against the breaching party.

More...

Broadband Dynamics v. SatCom Marketing

Arizona courts disfavor statute-of-limitation defenses. Where a dispute presents two possible statute-of-limitation constructions, the longer limitations period governs.

More...

KnightBrook Insurance v. Payless Car Rental

Although Arizona has adopted sections of the RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF RESTITUTION, it has not adopted § 78 because the section conflicts with Arizona’s equitable-indemnity principles.

More...

Zumar Industries v. Caymus Corp

The Arizona Prompt Payment Act does not apply to a contractor-subcontractor dispute on a federal public-works project.

More...

Twin City Fire v. Leijas

In Arizona, an injured employee accepts workers’ compensation benefits and later settles claims against a third party for less than the limits of the third party’s insurance, the employee may obtain a judicial determination of whether the worker’s compensation carrier’s lien should be reduced to account for the employer’s comparative fault.

More...

Bank of America v. Felco

Equitable subrogation is not a defense, or objection to, a trustee’s sale and is not waivable under ARIZ. REV. STAT. §33-811(C).

More...

Sign Here Petitions v. Chavez

In Arizona, when considering a motion for summary judgment in a defamation case, the superior court must: (1) act as Free Speech gatekeeper and avoid any chilling effect on free expression by protecting against meritless litigation; (2) determine whether a statement is defamatory by considering all of the circumstances surrounding the statement; and (3) employ a reasonable-person test to evaluate the circumstances surrounding an allegedly defamatory statement.

More...

Archived Cases of Interest