§ 23.11.4 APPEALS AFTER SUPERIOR COURT REVIEW.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 23.11.4Appeals After Superior Court Review. With one exception, there are no appeals of right beyond superior court review. Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Ariz. App. 397, 398-99, 427 P.2d 378, 379-80 (1967); SCRAP-Civ. 14(b). Indeed, a case that originates in justice court and is subsequently appealed to the superior court is not "brought into a superior court from any other court" so as to permit appeal to the court of appeals pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B). Sanders v. Moore, 117 Ariz. 527, 528, 573 P.2d 927, 928 (App. 1977) (citing State v. Fagerberg, 17 Ariz. App. 63, 495 P.2d 503 (1972)); Morgan v. Continental Mortgage Investors, 16 Ariz. App. 86, 88, 491 P.2d 475, 477 (1971). For example, in Mead, Samuel & Co. v. Dyar, 127 Ariz. 565, 567-70, 622 P.2d 512, 514-17 (App. 1980), the court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal arising out of a forcible detainer action commenced in justice court. The court rejected appellant's contention that the justice court judgment was a nullity and that the subsequent superior court determination of the issues was therefore the initial judgment from which an appeal could be taken to the court of appeals. Id. Even though no further appeal is available, it may nonetheless be possible to obtain special action review of the superior court determination. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4). See Civil Appeals § 3.3.1.2; Appellate Court Special Actions § 7.3.2.

The one exception to the rule of "no review" arises by implication from Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3), which gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction in civil actions originating in courts not of record where "the action involves the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, statute or municipal ordinance." See also A.R.S. § 22-375(A); Sanders, 117 Ariz. at 528, 573 P.2d at 928. This exception is stated in SCRAP-Civ. 14(b). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), the court of appeals also has appellate jurisdiction of those matters. In all such actions from which further appeal can be taken, a party may request before trial that the superior court find the facts, separately state its conclusions of law, and direct entry of judgment.

However, the court of appeals may hear and determine special action petitions brought pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, without regard to its appellate jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4); see State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court (Klemencic), 170 Ariz. 474, 475, 826 P.2d 337, 338 (App. 1991); State ex rel. McDougall v. Albrecht, 168 Ariz. 128, 131, 811 P.2d 791, 794 (App. 1991); State v. Aguilar, 170 Ariz. 292, 294, 823 P.2d 1300, 1302 (App. 1991). See also Civil Appeals § 3.3.1.2; Appellate Court Special Actions § 7.3.2. Thus, a petition for special action is the sole avenue of appellate review of a superior court's ruling on appeal. See Wozniak v. Superior Court, 200 Ariz. 550, 552-53, ¶ 7, 30 P.3d 131, 133-34 (App. 2001) (accepting special action review to address admissibility of drug screen results, an issue of statewide importance); Hennessey v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz. 298, 299, 947 P.2d 872, 873 (App. 1997) (accepting special action review to address whether DUI trial delay violated R. Crim. P. 8.2(a), because it was a question of statewide concern likely to recur); State v. Superior Court, 179 Ariz. 343, 344, 878 P.2d 1381, 1382 (App. 1994).

City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 2 Ariz. App. 25, 406 P.2d 227 (1965)......................... 23-6

Colvin v. Weigold, 31 Ariz. 370, 253 P. 633 (1927)....................................................... 23-7

Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Ariz.App. 397, 427 P.2d 378 (1967)............. 23-2, 12

Hennessey v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz. 298, 947 P.2d 872 (App. 1997)....................... 23-13

Horne v. Superior Court,89 Ariz. 289, 361 P.2d 547 (1961)........................................ 23-11

McCloskey v. Renfro, 47 Ariz. 534, 57 P.2d 1140 (1936)............................................... 23-3

Mead, Samuel & Co. v. Dyar, 127 Ariz. 565, 622 P.2d 512 (App. 1980)....................... 23-13

Morgan v. Continental Mortgage Investors, 16 Ariz. App. 86, 491 P.2d 475 (1971)...... 23-13

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Phelps, 42 Ariz. 222, 23 P.2d 937 (1933)................................ 23-6

Phoenix-Sunflower Indus., Inc. v....