Paul J. McMurdie

Meet the Judge

Division:
Division 1
Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:
100%
Bio:
View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:
Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.

Judicial Decisions

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: Joined in 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: Authored 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.
BIGGS, et al. v. BETLACH, et al.
Case Date: 03/16/2017Case Number: 1 CA-CV 15-0743Question Presented: Whether the hospital assessment enacted as part of Medicare expansion violated the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The enactment did not violate the super-majority vote requirement of the Arizona Constitution because the statute imposed an assessment that is excepted under the law. Note the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the assessment did not violate the state constitution.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES CLAYTON JOHNSON
Case Date: 08/23/2019Case Number: CR-16-0261-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law in capital cases (first-degree murder) regarding aggravating circumstances for offenses committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner is constitutional.Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.