Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Good questions.  I considered those. I am, after all, going to use this space to discuss the most interesting appellate decisions in Arizona, the Ninth Circuit, and possibly other Circuits, depending upon who piques my interest and why.   I could, of course, write reams about the fall weather in Arizona (lovely); or my morning run (5 miles, scintillating conversation with my running partners); or my kids (fine, thank you –  Rebecca is studying for her boards and Alex is researching something about amphipathic dynorphin analogues).  It’s all quite appealing.  And whenever my personal stories are more interesting than any appellate decision, I’ll be sure to apprise the world. Hence, the title and, happily, our marketing person Lindsay agrees it’s perfect.

My current favorite new case has a convoluted history and a plaintiff named “Bingo Bada Bing.” I happen to know a bit about it, as the Jaburg Wilk appellate team represented Mrs. Sasser, the successful appellant in  Rogone v. Correia, 1 CA-CV 13-0375, 2014 WL 4783414 (App. Sept. 25, 2014).  John Rogone is the “Bingo Bada Bing” of children’s book fame and immortalized in a Fox news report, when he tattooed Sheriff Joe’s face on his belly and had the sheriff autograph the picture.  The appellate decision itself is only slightly less interesting (although there are admittedly no tattoos involved).  The Court of Appeals determined that the homestead exemption is available without reference to equitable factors.  The Rogones argued that Mrs. Sasser was not entitled to her homestead exemption because her home had been sold to satisfy a California fraud judgment.  But the Court noted that A.R.S. §33-1101 does not require a person to satisfy notions of equity to qualify for the exemption.  The Court also determined, in a case of first impression, that the superior court is all one court and that a judge may rule on a Rule 60 motion to set aside a judgment entered by a different judge. The court found that, although it might have been desirable to have a single judge consider the issue, consideration of a Rule 60 motion by a newly assigned judge (after standard judicial rotation) raises no jurisdictional concerns.


This post is not intended to provide legal advice. Always consult an attorney for legal advice for your particular situation.

Advertisements