Inscription Canyon Ranch prevailed in a declaratory judgment action filed by Talking Rock Land. In a separate memorandum decision, the court of appeals affirms. This opinion concerns Canyon Ranch’s fee award. After prevailing on summary judgment, Canyon Ranch asked for almost a million dollars in fees and was awarded $700,000. Canyon Ranch appeals this ruling and contends the trial court’s reduction was an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not expressly find which fees it believes were excessive. The court of appeals holds no such findings are required so long as the record reflects a reasonable basis for the trial court’s decision. A prior decision, McDowell Mt. Ranch Cmty. Ass’n v. Simons, 216 Ariz. 266 (App. 2007), does not impose such a requirement although it circumscribes a trial court’s discretion. (We usually see a discussion on China Doll, but it is not cited here. We are also of the mind the law is settled on this.) The trial court also did not err when relying upon Talking Rock’s proportionality argument, pointing out block billing, and time spent on other cases. Finally, Talking Rock asserted its own fees were merely $400,000. While the better practice when making such a challenge is to provide details for comparison such as comparable tasks, hourly rates, etc., there was still no abuse of discretion. For anyone wondering, the court of appeals awarded additional fees against Talking Rock in its memorandum decision.

here is the link

Someone wasn’t paying attention in tort class. But then again, Cardozo and Andrews’s views in Palsgraf compete not only with each other, but hundreds of cases since including the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Gibson v. Kasey.

Perez tripped and fell over a case of water at the end of an aisle. She admitted if she would have looked down, she would have seen it. The court of appeals affirms summary judgment by focusing on “duty.” The court holds that whether a duty exists depends on a relationship and the presence of “an unreasonable risk of harm.” In determining duty, the court determines the legal relationship and the “reasonableness of the circumstances as necessary in determining duty.” The court of appeals decides there is no duty because the case of water was not unreasonably dangerous.  What? Let’s assume that the trial court decided differently and held there was a duty. What would the defendant say about that? Isn’t the court of appeals doing what it says it cannot do: defining duty in terms of foreseeable risk. The concurrence has a better analysis. The issue is breach and not duty.

here is the link

People play out their lives in social media.  Divorce court tells father to stop posting on social media information about their older child after posting a video of the child experiencing a seizure. Father said this was an attempt to find help for the child’s condition.  The court of appeals holds the divorce court violated the First Amendment. Prior restraint requires evidence of actual or threatened physical or emotional harm to the child. “We appreciate the superior court’s thoughtful desire to protect unrepresented children caught in the middle of warring parents, but specific evidence of harm is required to overcome a parent’s right to free speech.”

here is the link