Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 10, 2017

City of Phoenix, Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Glenayre Electronics, Inc.; William Lyon Homes, Inc.; KB Home Holdings, Inc.; Richmond American Homes, Inc.; MDC/Wood, Inc.; UDC Homes, Inc., nka Shea Homes of Phoenix, Inc. (FN) and Elliott Homes, Inc.; Swengel-Robbins Contracting Co., Inc.; AZTEC Construction, Inc.; JNC, Inc.; UH Holdings, Inc.; Los Paisanos Development, Inc.; Michael Newsome; Chi Construction Co.; Continental Homes, Inc.; Pulte Home Corp.; Del Webb Corp.; Wittman Contracting Co.; Jeff Blandford Investments, Inc., Third-Party Defendants/Appellees.

         Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, Judge The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge The Honorable Lori Horn Bustamante, Judge No. CV2013-001762

         Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 240 Ariz. 80, 375 P.3d 1189 (App. 2016) VACATED IN PART.

          Mary O'Grady (argued), Eric M. Fraser, Jana L. Sutton, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix; and Brad Holm, Phoenix City Attorney, Phoenix, Attorneys for City of Phoenix.

          Kevin E. O'Malley (argued), Mark A. Fuller, Thomas A. Maraz, Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A., Phoenix, Attorneys for CHI Construction Company and Continental Homes, Inc.

          Dennis I. Wilenchik, John D. Wilenchik, Colleen C. Thomas, Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Jeff Blandford Investments, Inc.

          Eileen Dennis GilBride, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Navajo, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties, the Town of Gilbert, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and the Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool.

          Thomas J. Shorall Jr., Jason J. Boblick, Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann, Phoenix, Attorneys for Wittman Contracting Company

          Richard K. Mahrle, Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Swengel-Robbins Contracting Co., Inc.

          Katherine E. Baker, Green & Baker Ltd., Scottsdale, Attorneys for Glenayre Electronics Inc.

          Brad D. Bleichner, Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for William Lyon Homes, Inc.

          Holly P. Davies, Alexix G. Terriquez, Lorber Greenfield & Polito LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for KB Home Holdings, Inc., Richmond American Homes, Inc. and MDC/Wood, Inc.

          Jill Ann Herman, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for UDC Homes Inc., nka Shea Homes of Phoenix Inc. (FN) and Elliot Homes Inc.

          Joseph A. Kula, Benjamin R. Eid, Law Office of Amy M. Hamilton, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Aztec Construction, Inc.

          Daniel D. Maynard, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for JNC, Inc. and UH Holdings, Inc.

          Vincent J. Montell, Michael J. Ponzo, Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA, Phoenix, Attorneys for Los Paisanos Development, Inc.

          Michael S. Rubin, Stephen E. Richman, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Pulte Home Corporation and Del Webb Corporation.

          VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES and JUSTICES BRUTINEL, BOLICK, GOULD, LOPEZ, and BERCH (Retired) [*] joined.

          OPINION

          PELANDER, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE.

         ¶1 Under A.R.S. § 12-510, claims by governmental entities generally are not barred by statutes of limitations. For actions relating to real property, however, Arizona's statute of repose provides that, "notwithstanding any other statute, " an action "based in contract" against certain identified parties must be filed within "eight years after substantial completion of the improvement of real property." A.R.S. § 12-552(A). We hold that governmental entities' contract-based actions (including claims for indemnification) that fall within § 12-552(A) are subject to that statute's proscription, notwithstanding § 12-510 or the common law doctrine known as "nullum tempus occurit regi" (time does not run against the king). For the contractors in this case having the requisite contractual relationship ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.