Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.
MEYER, et al. v. STATE
Case Date: 02/05/2019Case Number: 1 CA-CV 18-0031Question Presented: Whether Arizona law stating “[t]he regulation of nonwage employee benefits . . . is not subject to further regulation by a city, town, or other political subdivision of this state,” violates the Arizona Constitution by implicitly repealing a portion of the Minimum Wage Act.Decision: The Arizona law impliedly repeals a portion of a voter-passed law, violating the Arizona Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
NORMANDIN v. ENCANTO, et al.
Case Date: 06/26/2018Case Number: 1 CA-CV 17-0373Question Presented: Whether the statutory meaning of “manager” in a premises liability case violates the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The law does not violate the Arizona Constitution.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
BRUSH & NIB, et al. v. PHOENIX
Case Date: 06/07/2018Case Number: 1 CA-CV 16-0602Question Presented: Whether Phoenix’s anti-discrimination ordinance, which prohibits places of public accommodation from denying service to individuals based on sexual orientation, is unconstitutional.Decision: Phoenix Ordinance S18-4(B) is constitutional under the free speech and freedom of association protections of the federal First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause; there is not a substantial burden upon religion that would be protected by Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA) Note the Arizona Supreme Court overturned this decision and ruled in favor of Brush and Nib Studios, CV-18-0176. Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE v. ANGULO-CHAVEZ
Case Date: 07/30/2019Case Number: 1 CA-CR 18-0501Question Presented: Whether Arizona law providing for “a fine of not less than one thousand dollars or three times the value, as determined by the court,” violates the constitutional jury-trial right. If so, whether the invalid portion of the statute is severable and whether the defendant is entitled to relief under fundamental error review.Decision: Arizona law does violate U.S. Constitution Amendment VI, the clause is severable, and defendant is not entitled to relief as he was not prejudiced by the error.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.