§ 7.3.6.1.1.4 Miscellaneous Cases Involving Interpretation of Rules

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 7.3.6.1.1.4 Miscellaneous Cases Involving Interpretation of Rules. In JV-111701 v. Superior Court (State),163 Ariz. 147, 148, 786 P.2d 998, 999 (App. 1989), the court of appeals considered the constitutionality of a juvenile rule that related to pretrial detention procedures. The court noted that principles of mootness would normally preclude appellate review of the question. Id. at 149, 786 P.2d at 1000.

There are many other examples of cases in which the appellate courts have accepted jurisdiction in order to interpret a procedural rule. See, e.g., Krone v. Hotham,181 Ariz. 364, 890 P.2d 1149 (1995) (discussing whether R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) precludes defendant sentenced to death from filing notice of post-conviction relief before direct appeal is concluded); Orme Sch. v. Reeves,166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 (1990) (articulating standards for adjudicating motions for summary judgment, requiring an interpretation of R. Civ. P. 56); Park v. Strick,137 Ariz. 100, 102, 669 P.2d 78, 80 (1983) (considering whether R. Civ. P. 60(c)(6) can be utilized to reenter judgment to extend time for appeal); State ex rel. Thomas v. Newell, 221 Ariz. 112, 210 P.3d 1283 (App. 2009) (addressing rules of disclosure in criminal cases); Ariz. Dep’t of Rev. v....