Mayer Unified School District and Gadsen Elementary School District v. Mark Winkleman, in his capacity as State Land Commissioner; The Arizona State Land Department; The State of Arizona; Apache County; Cochise County; Coconino County; Graham County; Greenlee County; Maricopa County; Mohave County; Navajo County; Pima County; Pinal County; Santa Cruz County; Yavapai County; Yuma County; Maricopa County Flood Control District; Arizona Department of Transportation; Town of Carefree; City of Tucson; City of Flagstaff; Town of Gila Bend; City of Glendale; City of Globe; Magma Flood Control District; Town of Marana; City of Peoria; City of Phoenix; City of Scottsdale; City of Sierra Vista; and City of Tempe

No. CV-08-0225-PR · Supreme Court of Arizona · February 13, 2009 · No. CV-08-0225-PR

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that claims seeking compensation for uncompensated easements over state trust lands were barred by the statute of limitations. The court concluded that the claims accrued no later than the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision requiring compensation for such uses, and rejected the argument that the alleged violation was continuing. The court vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion and affirmed the superior court’s dismissal.

Holdings

  1. The districts' cause of action accrued no later than January 10, 1967, when Lassen II was decided and reasonable persons should have known that compensation for the easements was required and had not been paid.
  2. The Commissioner's continuing duty to obtain value for trust-land easements did not create a continuing violation that avoided the statute of limitations; the violation occurred when the easements were granted.
  3. The districts' claims were time-barred because the complaint was filed more than one year after the claims accrued.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the school districts' claims for compensation for easements granted over state trust lands between 1929 and 1967 were barred by Arizona's one-year statute of limitations for actions against a government entity.
  2. When the districts' cause of action accrued under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B).
  3. Whether the State Land Commissioner's continuing duty to obtain compensation created a continuing violation that avoided the statute of limitations.

Disposition

vacated

Cases Cited (12)

  • Forest Guardians v. Wells, 201 Ariz. 255, 257, ¶ 2, 34 P.3d 364, 366 (2001)(followed)
  • Berry v. Arizona State Land Department, 133 Ariz. 325, 327, 651 P.2d 853, 855 (1982)(followed)
  • Lassen v. Arizona ex rel. Arizona Highway Department, 385 U.S. 458, 466-70 & n.22 (1967)(followed)
  • Grossetta v. Choate, 51 Ariz. 248, 250-54, 75 P.2d 1031, 1032-33 (1938)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Conway v. State Land Department, 62 Ariz. 248, 249-56, 156 P.2d 901, 901-04 (1945)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Arizona Highway Department v. Lassen, 99 Ariz. 161, 162-68, 407 P.2d 747, 747-52 (1965)(reversed_authority)
  • Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department, 155 Ariz. 484, 486-88, 747 P.2d 1183, 1185-87 (1987), aff'd sub nom. Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989)(followed)
  • Murphy v. State, 65 Ariz. 338, 344-53, 181 P.2d 336, 340-46 (1947)(followed)
  • Tucson Unified School District v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 174 Ariz. 336, 337, 849 P.2d 790, 791 (1993)(distinguished)
  • City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 209 Ariz. 544, 554, ¶ 42, 105 P.3d 1163, 1173 (2005)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…