The court of appeals accepts special action jurisdiction and then denies it. There is no right to a jury trial in actions brought before the corporation commission for violations of the Arizona Securities Act. Last year the Supreme Court recognized such a right under the Seventh Amendment in actions filed by the SEC. But states can decide whether a jury trial is available under its own constitution and statutes. The Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states. Arizona’s constitution gives the corporation commission quasi-judicial powers, and it can prescribe its rules and regulations. “If our constitutional framers had intended to confer a jury-trial right for Commission enforcement actions, they would have done so.” Such negativity. The Seventh Amendment sits alone with the Grand Jury Requirement of the Fifth Amendment as not being incorporated against the states. Administrative tribunals continually deny jury trials, courts legitimize the denials, and our legislature persistently ignore them.

link to opinion

Judge Eckerstrom’s opinion is a well-considered exercise in statutory interpretation. Pima Community College is not bound by certain of Arizona’s historic preservation laws because it is not a state agency. The historic preservation laws, A.R.S. §§ 41-861-864, apply only to the state and “its agencies.” These statutes do not include political subdivisions, although other statutes impose other historic preservation responsibilities, and one may look there. As for the dilapidated hotels on Drachman, Copper Cactus Inn, El Ranch, and the Frontier, Pima College may move forward with demolishing them and throwing up more concrete boxes.

link to opinion

Arizona Supreme Court holds that property owners may quiet title to their property after the statute of limitations on a debt runs. The confusion comes from a 1914 case from the Arizona Supreme Court called Provident v. Schwerner. The court, over a hundred years ago, relied upon the notion that equity (clearing title) was not available to a mortgagor when his mortgage debt remained unpaid. In 1941, the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-1104, which states that a person may quiet title when the statute of limitations runs on an action to enforce a lien or judgment.  The argument was that a deed of trust is something different and remains even if the statute of limitations on the debt has expired. Provident conflicts with the statute. Under Arizona’s constitution, the common law is subordinated to the legislature. Further, equity cannot upset rights defined by statute. We agree with all of this, but doesn’t it feel strange that in 2025 we are overruling a 1914 Arizona Supreme Court decision by applying a 1941 statute?

link to opinion