The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has filed the final brief in Arizona’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury and federal officials challenging the Tax Mandate of the American Rescue Plan Act (Act) because it threatens to penalize states by withholding federal COVID-19 relief funding if they lower taxes in any fashion.
Arizona is asking that the Court declare the condition unenforceable and enjoin enforcement of the Tax Mandate. It does not seek to prevent Arizona from receiving the COVID-19 funds.
The Attorney General’s brief argues that the Tax Mandate is unconstitutionally ambiguous in that Congress failed to give Arizona and other states fair notice of the conditions upon which federal funds were being offered. Binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent has held that such ambiguity is fatal. In addition, Arizona’s brief argues that prohibiting any and all tax cuts is not properly related to federal spending.
After hearing oral argument on June 22, U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa agreed to consolidate trial on the merits and issue a final judgment in this case. She also permitted both sides to file a final brief, which Arizona filed late Wednesday night.
The Court is expected to rule on the case and issue a final judgment in due course.
There is likely no other intellectual today willing to write on the controversies in social science concerning human achievement with the courage and wisdom of Charles Murray.
Universities used to be the place where anything could be discussed and reasonable people could work out their disagreements with each other.
But the universities are now failed institutions and have become a crudeecho chamber for left wing views.They in fact became the conduit to inject discord into the greater society.
And outside of the university, the freedom to express controversial ideas has narrowed in the public square. Media monopolies routinely utilize shaming, book banning, boycotting and ‘canceling’ against those they disagree with. On the ground there is harassment and even physical assaults on those that disagree with the leftist narrative.Murray himself has been a victim of this.Hence, we regard him as courageous.
On Friday, Kathryn Hackett King, a member of the Arizona Board of Regents and University of Arizona College of Law graduate, was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Kin’s appointment by Governor Doug Ducey fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Andrew Gould.
Gould is currently running in the Arizona Attorney General’s race.
King’s appointment to the court now leaves a vacancy on the Arizona Board of Regents
King is the fifth woman in Arizona history to serve on the Supreme Court.
King is currently a partner at Burns Barton PLC. The focus of her practice is the representation of private and public employers in employment litigation and related civil matters. King is a member of the Arizona Women Lawyers Association and a mentor for the Latina Mentoring Project.
King began her private practice career at Snell & Wilmer LLP, where she practiced in the areas of employment law and commercial and business litigation.
From 2015 to 2017, King served as Deputy General Counsel to Ducey, according to the Governor’s Office. King clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Ryan from 2007 to 2008.
King graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Political Science and minoring in History. She obtained her law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
“Kate’s strong belief in the separation of powers and experience serving in all three branches of government will serve the people of Arizona well,” Ducey said in a released statement. “I have witnessed her intelligence and wisdom firsthand, and I know she is well-respected in the legal field.”
A jury can decide whether a Tucson business is vicariously liable for the 2018 death of a woman killed by one of the company’s employees, according to a recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In May, the court unanimously overturned a 2020 decision by a Pima County judge who had ruled Casas Custom Floor Care was not responsible for the actions of its employee, Martin Montano, who caused the death of Samantha Jo Cravens after running a red light on his way to the company’s office.
According to court records, Montano left a job site at the end of his shift and headed to the Casas Custom office to fill out and correct his timesheet. During the drive Montano collided with a car driven by Cravens, 29, who suffered fatal injuries.
Michael Corey Cravens, Samantha’s husband, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Montano and his employer in April 2019. Court records show Montano settled with Cravens in late 2019 but Casas Custom contended the company was not liable for its employee’s conduct.
In January 2020, the Humphrey & Petersen Law Firm filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Casas Custom to have the employer dismissed from Cravens’ lawsuit. The company argued Montano “was not acting within the course and scope of employment” and that there was an absence of an employer’s “right of control” over the employee.
The motion for summary judgment was granted in May 2020 by Judge Brenden Griffin of the Pima County Superior Court and Casas Custom was dismissed from the lawsuit.
Cravens, who is represented by the law office of Mesch, Clark, and Rothschild, appealed the grant of summary judgment. On May 25, Vice Chief Judge Christopher Staring of the Arizona Court of Appeals authored a unanimous decision reversing Griffin’s dismissal order.
Staring wrote that an employer can be found vicariously liable for an employee’s work-related conduct if the employee was “acting within the scope of their employment.” Scope of employment is defined by the court as an employee performing work “assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer’s control.”
The Court of Appeals found there is a material factual dispute in Cravens’ lawsuit about whether Montano’s conduct was outside the scope of his employment. That makes Casas Custom’s liability a question for a jury, not a judge, Staring wrote.
Casas Custom Floor Care did not petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review of the appellate decision. The Pima County Superior Court will be mandated in a few weeks to conduct further proceedings in accordance to the decision.
Public records show Cravens’ case has been now reassigned to Judge D. Douglas Metcalf. In April, Metcalf was asked by Cincinnati Indemnity Company to grant a motion of summary judgment for dismissal of another part of Cravens’ lawsuit. One of the issues is whether a “Morris Agreement” entered into by Montano to settle the portion of the case against him is enforceable.
According to the Arizona Supreme Court, an insurer like Cincinnati Indemnity can accept defense of a claim while still reserving its right to contest coverage. The insured also has the option to independently enter into a settlement, provided the insured continues to cooperate with the insurer during the litigation.
The settlement, known as a Morris Agreement, “must be made fairly, with notice to the insurer, and without fraud or collusion on the insurer” in order to be valid. An insurer is not bound to a Morris Agreement unless it is reasonable and prudent, something Metcalf is expected to rule on this summer.
In the meantime, the judge will hear arguments on July 23 concerning other pending motions involving Cincinnati Indemnity and Cravens.
Montano, 32, was criminally charged in November 2018 with failure to stop for a red light and causing an accident which resulted in death or serious injury. The case was prosecuted as a misdemeanor and ended in a plea by Montano in 2019 of guilty or responsible.
Details as to what sentence was imposed on Montano were not available from the Pima Justice Court as of press time but the longest jail sentence allowed for a misdemeanor is one year.
Arizona, as part of a coalition of states is suing Google in an antitrust case challenging the company’s control over its Android app store.
Google is facing a series of major antitrust cases, including a suit that the Justice Department and 14 states filed in October, focused on Google’s efforts to dominate the mobile search market; one from 38 states and territories filed in December, also focused on search; and a third suit by 15 states and territories related to Google’s power over the advertising technology.
As Big Tech continues to flex its monopolistic powers regulators have attempted to rein in the search giant in Arizona. State Rep. Regina Cobb had hoped to help consumers save money and innovators compete in the tech market this past legislative session. Rep. Biasiucci had thrown his support behind Cobb’s bill, which would have allowed app developers to avoid what the two lawmakers call “devastating” fees imposed by big tech monopolies.
That bill died an untimely death.
The heart of the lawsuit centers on Google’s exclusionary conduct which substantially shuts out competing app distribution channels. Google requires that app developers, that offer their apps through the Google Play Store, use Google Billing as a middleman. This arrangement forces app consumers to pay Google’s commission— up to 30 percent— on in-app purchases of digital content. This commission is much higher than what consumers would pay if they could choose from one of Google‘s competitors instead. The lawsuit alleges that Google works to discourage or prevent competition, violating federal and state antitrust laws.
When Google launched its Android OS, it originally promised to keep it an “open source” platform. The lawsuit alleges Google did not keep that promise. By promising to keep Android open, Google successfully enticed manufacturers (such as Samsung) and operators (such as Verizon) to adopt Android, and more importantly, to forgo competing with Google’s Play Store at that time. Google then shut down the Android ecosystem and relevant Android App Distribution Market as soon as it was feasible to do so, effectively trapping consumers and app developers in that ecosystem and removing any effective competition by (among other things) requiring manufacturers and operators to enter into various contractual and other restraints.
Arizona also alleges that Google engaged in conduct in violation of consumer protection laws by falsely representing that it would keep Android “open” and by issuing misleading warnings to consumers– that directly downloading an app would lead to disastrous consequences for the user and their device which also enhanced and protected Google’s monopoly position.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
