League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Martin, 219 Ariz. 556

201 P.3d 517 (2009) · Supreme Court of Arizona · February 3, 2009 · No. CV-08-0379-SA

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Section 47 of House Bill 2209, requiring Arizona counties, cities, and towns to deposit money into the state general fund, was not an appropriation properly included in the general appropriations bill. Because the provision did not identify and reduce a prior appropriation, it violated Article 4, Part 2, Section 20 of the Arizona Constitution. The court accepted special-action jurisdiction, rejected the Governor's laches defense, and denied the League's request for attorneys' fees.

Holdings

  1. The court accepted special-action jurisdiction because the case presented novel constitutional issues of statewide importance, involved the highest levels of state government, and required prompt resolution concerning the current state budget.
  2. The League's approximately four-and-one-half-month delay did not bar its challenge because the delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances and the Governor failed to demonstrate prejudice.
  3. Section 47 was not an appropriation and therefore was improperly included in the general appropriations bill. It violated article 4, part 2, section 20 of the Arizona Constitution.
  4. The League was not entitled to attorneys' fees under A.R.S. section 12-348(A) because the statute excludes a city, town, or county from fee recovery and the League asserted standing as the representative of cities and towns.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court should exercise special-action jurisdiction over the League's constitutional challenge.
  2. Whether the League's delay in filing the special action barred the challenge under laches.
  3. Whether section 47 of HB 2209 constituted an appropriation that could constitutionally be included in the general appropriations bill under article 4, part 2, section 20 of the Arizona Constitution.
  4. Whether the League was entitled to attorneys' fees under A.R.S. section 12-348(A).

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (14)

  • Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482, 485, 487, 143 P.3d 1023, 1026, 1028 (2006)(followed)
  • Randolph v. Groscost, 195 Ariz. 423, 425, 989 P.2d 751, 753 (1999)(followed)
  • Rios v. Symington, 172 Ariz. 3, 5, 7-11, 833 P.2d 20, 22, 24-28 (1992)(followed)
  • State Comp. Fund v. Symington, 174 Ariz. 188, 192, 848 P.2d 273, 277 (1993)(followed)
  • Sotomayor v. Burns, 199 Ariz. 81, 83, 13 P.3d 1198, 1200 (2000)(followed)
  • Harris v. Purcell, 193 Ariz. 409, 412, 414, 973 P.2d 1166, 1169, 1171 (1998)(followed)
  • Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62, 66, 834 P.2d 148, 152 (1992)(followed)
  • Jerger v. Rubin, 106 Ariz. 114, 117, 471 P.2d 726, 729 (1970)(followed)
  • Tovrea v. Umphress, 27 Ariz. App. 513, 521, 556 P.2d 814, 822 (1976)(followed)
  • Lubin v. Thomas, 213 Ariz. 496, 497, 144 P.3d 510, 511 (2006)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…